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 Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents questions concerning the timeliness of an appeal by the Government from a summary judgment of a District Court to the Court of Appeals in an action for the recovery of money only. The basic question presented is which of two series of judicial and ministerial acts — one on April 14 and the other on May 24, 1955 — constituted the “judgment” and “entry of the judgment.” If it was the former, the appeal was out of time, but if the latter, it was not.
The overt facts are clear and undisputed. Respondent sued the Government for $7,189.57, alleged to have been illegally assessed and collected from it as federal stamp taxes, and for interest thereon from the date of payment. After issue was joined, respondent moved for summary judgment. The district judge, after hearing the motion, filed an opinion on April 14, 1955 (130 F. Supp. 322), in which, after finding that respondent had paid stamp taxes to the Government in the amount of $7,012.50 and interest in the amount of $177.07, but making no finding of the date or dates of payment, he referred to an earlier decision of the same legal question by his colleague, Judge Leibell, in United States v. National Sugar Refining Co., 113 F. Supp. 157, and concluded, saying: “I am in agreement with Judge Leibell’s analysis and, accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion is granted.” Thereupon, the clerk made the following notation in the civil docket: “April 14, 1955. Rayfiel, J. Decision rendered on motion for summary judgment. Motion granted. See opinion on file.”
Thereafter, on May 24, 1955, counsel for respondent presented to the judge, and the latter signed and filed, a formal document captioned “Judgment,” which referred to the motion and the hearing of it and to the “opinion” of April 14, and then,
“ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff, The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., recover of the defendant, United States of America, the sum of $7,189.57 and interest thereon from February 19, 1954 in the amount of $542.80, together with costs as taxed by the Clerk of the Court in the sum of $37, aggregating the sum of $7,769.37, and that plaintiff have judgment against defendant therefor.”
On the same day the clerk stamped the document “Judgment Rendered: Dated: May 24th, 1955,” and made the following notation in the civil docket:
“May 24, 1955. Rayfiel, J. Judgment filed and docketed against defendant in the sum of $7189.57 with interest of $542.80 together with costs $37 amounting in all to $7769.37. Bill of Costs attached to judgment.”
On July 21, 1955, the Government filed its notice of appeal from the order “entered in this action on May 25th, 1955 . . . Thereafter, respondent moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the opinion of April 14 constituted the “judgment,” that the clerk’s entry of that date constituted “entry of the judgment,” and that the appeal was not taken within 60 days from the “entry of the judgment,” as required by Rule 73 (a). The Court of Appeals, holding that the opinion of April 14 was a “decisive and complete act of adjudication,” and that the notation made by the clerk in the civil docket on that date constituted “entry of the judgment” within the meaning of Rule 58 and adequately disclosed the “substance” of the judgment as required by Rule 79 (a), sustained the motion and dismissed the appeal as untimely. 236 F. 2d 889. Because of an asserted conflict among the circuits and the public importance of the proper interpretation and uniform application of the provisions of the Federal Rules governing the time within which appeals may be taken from judgments of District Courts in actions for money only tried without a jury, we granted certiorari. 353 U. S. 907.
Stated summarily, the Government contends (1) that practical considerations require that a final judgment be contained in a separate document so labeled; (2) that the district judge’s opinion did not contain any of the elements of a final judgment for money nor manifest an intention that it was to be his final act in the case; (3) that it was only the formal judgment of May 24 which awarded any sum of money to respondent and which invoked the provisions of Rule 58, saying “When the court directs that a party recover only money or costs or that all relief be denied, the clerk shall enter judgment forthwith upon receipt by him of the direction”; (4) that where, as here, a formal judgment is signed and filed by the judge it is prima jade his final decision, and, inasmuch as nothing in his opinion indicated any contrary intention, the formal “judgment” constituted his final decision; and (5) that the notation made by the clerk in the civil docket on April 14 did not indicate an award of any sum of money to respondent and, therefore, did not “show . . . the substance of [a money] judgment of the court,” as required by Rule 79 (a) and, hence, did not constitute “the entry of [a] judgment” for money, within the meaning of Rule 58, nor start the running of the time to appeal under Rule 73 (a).
Resolution of these contentions depends principally upon the proper construction and application of the pertinent provisions of Rules 58 and 79 (a). Rule 58, in pertinent part, provides:
“When the court directs that a party recover only money or costs or that all relief be denied, the clerk shall enter judgment forthwith upon receipt by him of the direction .... The notation of a judgment in the civil docket as provided by Rule 79 (a) consti tutes the entry of the judgment; and the judgment is not effective before such entry.” (Emphasis supplied.)
So much of Rule 79 (a) as is pertinent here provides:
“All . . . judgments shall be noted ... in the civil docket .... These notations shall be brief but shall show . . . the substance of each . . . judgment of the court . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
At the outset the Government contends that practical considerations — namely, certainty as to what judicial pronouncements are intended to be final judgments in order to avoid both premature and untimely appeals, to render certain the date of judgment liens, and to enable the procurement of writs of execution, transcripts and certified copies of judgments — require that a judgment be contained in a separate document so labeled, and urges us so to hold. Whatever may be the practical needs in these respects, the answer is that no present statute or rule so requires, as the Government concedes, and the decisional law seems settled that “[n]o form of words ... is necessary to evince [the] rendition [of a judgment].” United States v. Hark, 320 U. S. 531, 534. See also In re Forstner Chain Corporation, 177 F. 2d 572, 576.
While an opinion may embody a final decision, the question whether it does so depends upon whether the judge has or has not clearly declared his intention in this respect in his opinion. Therefore, when, as here, the action is for money only — whether for a liquidated or an unliquidated amount, as Rule 58 makes no such distinction — it is necessary to determine whether the language of the opinion embodies the essential elements of a judgment for money and clearly evidences the judge’s intention that it shall be his final act in the case. If it does so, it constitutes his final judgment and, under Rule 58, it “directs that a party recover [a sum of] money,” and, “upon receipt by [the clerk] of the [opinion],” requires him to “enter judgment forthwith” against the party found liable for the amount awarded, which is to be done by making a brief “notation of [the] judgment in the civil docket [showing the substance of the judgment of the court] as provided by Rule 79 (a).” When all of these elements clearly appear final judgment has been both pronounced and entered, and the time to appeal starts to run under the provisions of Rule 73 (a). And, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, the later filing and entry of a more formal judgment could not constitute a second final judgment in the case nor extend the time to appeal. 236 F. 2d, at 892.
But, on the other hand, if the opinion leaves doubtful whether the judge intended it to be his final act in the case — and, in an action for money, failure to determine either expressly or by reference the amount to be awarded is strong evidence of such lack of intention — one cannot say that it “directs that a party recover [a sum of] money,” as required by Rule 58 before the clerk “shall enter judgment forthwith”; nor can one say that the clerk’s “notation in the civil docket” — if it sets forth no more substance than is contained or directed in the opinion, and being only a ministerial act (In re Forstner Chain Corporation, supra, 177 F. 2d, at 576) it may do no more— “show[s] . . . the substance of [a] judgment” of the court, as required by Rule 79 (a), and “constitutes the entry of the judgment” against a party for a sum of money under Rule 58.
While, as stated, there is no statute or rule that specifies the essential elements of a final judgment, and this Court has held that “[n]o form of words and no peculiar formal act is necessary to evince [the] rendition [of a judgment] ” (United States v. Hark, supra, at 534), yet it is obvious that a final judgment for money must, at least, determine, or specify the means for determining, the amount (United States v. Cooke, 215 F. 2d 528, 530); and an opinion, in such a case, which does not either expressly or by reference determine the amount of money awarded reveals doubt, at the very least, whether the opinion was a “complete act of adjudication” — to borrow a phrase from the Court of Appeals — or was intended by the judge to be his final act in the case.
But respondent argues, as the Court of Appeals held, that the opinion stated the amount of money illegally collected from respondent and, therefore, adequately determined the amount awarded, and that inasmuch as the clerk’s entry incorporated the opinion by reference, it, too, adequately stated the amount of the judgment. This contention might well be accepted were it not for the fact that the action also sought recovery of interest on the amount paid by respondent from the date of payment to the date of judgment, and for the fact that the opinion does not state the date or dates of payment and, hence, did not state facts necessary to compute the amount of interest to be included in the judgment. Cf. United States v. Cooke, supra, at 530. In an effort to counter the effect of these omissions, respondent states that a search of the record, which it urges we should make, would show that the Government’s answer admitted the date of payment, and thus would furnish the information necessary to compute the amount of interest to be included in the judgment. It relies upon a statement in the Forstner case, supra, saying “Whether such a judgment has been rendered depends primarily upon the intention of the court, as gathered from the record as a whole . . . .” 177 F. 2d, at 576. (Emphasis supplied.) This argument cannot be accepted under the facts here for the reason that Rule 79 (a) expressly requires that the clerk’s entry “shall show . . . the substance of [the] judgment of the court. . . .” Surely the amount of a judgment for money is a vital part of its substance. To hold that one must search the whole record to determine the amount, or the facts necessary to compute the amount, of a final judgment for money would be to ignore the quoted provision of Rule 79 (a).
In these circumstances, the rule declared by this Court in the Hark case — though a criminal case and, therefore, not governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which as we have shown afford no aid in determining judicial intent — is exactly apposite and controlling.
“Where, as here, a formal judgment is signed by the judge, this is prima facie the decision or judgment rather than a statement in an opinion or a docket entry. . . . The judge was conscious, as we are, that he was without power to extend the time for appeal. He entered a formal order of record. We are unwilling to assume that he deemed this an empty form or that he acted from a purpose indirectly to extend the appeal time, which he could not do overtly. In the absence of anything of record to lead to a contrary conclusion, we take the formal order of March 31 as in fact and in law the pronouncement of the court’s judgment and as fixing the date from which the time for appeal ran.” United States v. Hark, 320 U. S., at 534-535. See also United States v. Higginson, 238 F. 2d 439, 443.
The actions of all concerned — of the judge in not stating in his opinion the amount, or means for determining the amount, of the judgment; of the clerk in not stating the amount of the judgment in his notation on the civil docket; of counsel for the Government in not appealing from the “opinion”; of counsel for respondent in preparing and presenting to the judge a formal “judgment” on May 24; and, finally, of the judge himself in signing and filing the formal “judgment” on the latter date— clearly show that none of them understood the opinion to be the judge’s final act or to constitute his final judgment in the case. Therefore, as in Hark, we must take the court’s formal judgment of May 24 and the clerk’s entry thereof on that date as in fact and in law the pronouncement and entry of the judgment and as fixing the date from which the time for appeal ran.
Reversed.
Unless otherwise stated, all references herein to Rules are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The First Circuit in United States v. Higginson, 238 F. 2d 439, declined to follow the Second Circuit’s opinion in the instant case, unless the latter may be said to rest upon local Rule 10 (a) of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, providing, in part, that a “memorandum of the determination of a motion, signed by the judge, shall constitute the order,” and concluded: “To the extent that the language of the Schaefer opinion might apply even where no such local rule exists, this decision is not in accord with it.” Id., at 443. In its later case of Matteson v. United States, 240 F. 2d 517, the Second Circuit makes clear that, it regards the Higginson opinion as in conflict with its opinion in the instant case, saying: “Since we viewed the local rule as merely corroborative of the practice actually required by F. R. 58, Judge Hartigan’s opinion must be taken as disapproving our reasoning.” Id., at 518.
The Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Papanikolaou v. Atlantic Freighters, 232 F. 2d 663, also appears, in result at least, to be in conflict with the Second Circuit’s opinion in the instant case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari in this case, 368 U. S. 886, to decide whether the State of New York could, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, assert sovereign immunity in a suit brought by petitioner to reform on grounds of mutual mistake, or to rescind for fraud in the inducement, an agreement fixing compensation for land taken under the power of eminent domain. Contrary to our initial impression of the case on the basis of the petition for certiorari, plenary consideration has satisfied us that the New York Court of Appeals decided no more than that this suit could not be maintained in the Supreme Court of the State of New York because exclusive jurisdiction over litigation of this character had been vested in the New York Court of Claims. The case then involves only a matter relating to “the distribution of jurisdiction in the state courts,” and presents no substantial federal question. E. g., Honeyman v. Hanan, 302 U. S. 375.
Since the representative of the State Attorney General advised us on oral argument that the Attorney General will recommend passage of a bill by the State Legislature relieving petitioner from the operation of the statute of limitations governing proceedings in the New York Court of Claims, [*] ? we assume that she will be free to present her claims in the appropriate state forum.
The writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Mr. Justice Whittaker 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:
|
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. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether an accused, subject to possible imprisonment, is denied due process when tried before a nonlawyer police court judge with a later trial de novo available under a State's two-tier court system; and whether a State denies equal protection by providing law-trained judges for some police courts and lay judges for others, depending upon the State Constitution's classification of cities according to population.
(1)
Appellant Lonnie North was arrested in Lynch, Ky., on July 10, 1974, and charged with driving while intoxicated in violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 189.520 (2) (1971). If a first offense, a penalty of a fine of from $100 to $500 is provided; if a subsequent offense, the same fine, and imprisonment for not more than six months. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 189.990 (10) (a) (1971).
Appellant’s trial was scheduled for July 18, 1974, at 7 p. m., before the Lynch City Police Court. Appellee C. B. Russell, who is not a lawyer, was the presiding judge. Appellant’s request for a jury was denied although under Kentucky law he was entitled to a jury trial. Ky. Const. § 11; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§25.014, 26.400 (1971). Appellant pleaded not guilty. Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days in jail, a fine of $150, and revocation of his driver’s license.
Section 156 of the Kentucky Constitution requires cities to be classified according to population size. There are six classes of cities: fifth-class cities have a population of between 1,000 and 3,000; sixth-class cities have a population of less than 1,000. Lynch is a fifth-class city. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 81.010 (5) (1971). A police judge in fifth- and sixth-class cities must by statute be a voter and resident of the city for at least one year and be bonded, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 26.200 (1971); the police judge in such cities need not be a lawyer. Police judges in first-class cities, which have populations of over 100,000, must have the same qualifications as a circuit judge, who must be at least 35 years of age, a citizen of Kentucky, a two-year resident of the district, and a practicing attorney for eight years. Ky. Const. § 130; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 26.140 (1971). Police court judges have terms of four years. In fourth-, fifth-, or sixth-class cities police judges maybe either appointed or elected. Ky. Const. § 160.
Police courts have jurisdiction, concurrent with circuit courts, of penal and misdemeanor cases punishable by a fine of not more than $500 and/or imprisonment of not more than 12 months. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 26.010 (1971). Kentucky has a two-tier misdemeanor court system. An appeal of right is provided from the decision of a police judge to the circuit court where all judges are lawyers, and in that court a jury trial de novo may be had. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23.032 (1971); Ky. Rule Crim. Proc. 12.06.
Appellant did not appeal to the Kentucky circuit court for a trial de novo to which he was entitled. After being sentenced by appellee judge, appellant challenged the statutory scheme described above by a writ of habeas corpus in the Harlan County Circuit Court, where he was represented by an attorney. Appellant contended that his federal due process and equal protection rights had been abridged because he had been tried and convicted in a court presided over by a judge without legal training and thus without legal competence. The State Circuit Court issued the writ, granted bail, and held an eviden-tiary hearing.
The Circuit Court noted that appellant was not challenging the adequacy of the proceedings before appellee Bussell, and hence rested on the appellant’s pleadings, which the court found were purposefully limited to the issue whether appellant could be tried before a judge who was not legally trained when persons similarly situated but residing in larger cities would be tried by a judge trained in the law. The Circuit Court denied relief on the basis of the Kentucky Court of Appeals holding in Ditty v. Hampton, 490 S. W. 2d 772 (1972), appeal dismissed, 414 U. S. 885 (1973). The Kentucky Court of Appeals in turn affirmed the denial of relief on the basis of Ditty v. Hampton, supra, noting that appellant could apply for bail in the event of an appeal from the Lynch Police Court judgment. 516 S. W. 2d 103 (1974).
When this ease first came here on appeal we vacated the judgment and remanded it “for further consideration in light of the position presently asserted by the Commonwealth.” 419 U. S. 1085 (1974). The Attorney General of Kentucky in his motion to dismiss or affirm had requested that this Court remand the case to the Kentucky Court of Appeals for consideration of violations of state law based on the suggestion that ap-pellee judge had “mistakenly imposed a sentence of imprisonment upon appellant for a first offense of driving while intoxicated, whereas imprisonment is not an authorized punishment for first offenders . . . .” The Kentucky Attorney General conceded that the writ of habeas corpus should have been granted and requested an opportunity to correct the error.
On remand, however, the Kentucky Court of Appeals declined to decide the case on the state grounds presented by the Attorney General, noting that the federal constitutional issue “was and is the only issue before us.” That court noted that appellant sought only to “test the constitutional status of lay judges in criminal cases.” No. 7¿h-723 (Mar. 21, 1975).
On the second appeal to this Court we noted probable jurisdiction. 422 U. S. 1040 (1975).
(2)
Appellant’s first claim is that when confinement is a possible penalty, a law-trained judge is required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whether or not a trial de novo before a lawyer-judge is available.
It must be recognized that there is a wide gap between the functions of a judge of a court of general jurisdiction, dealing with complex litigation, and the functions of a local police court judge trying a typical “drunk” driver case or other trafile violations. However, once it appears that confinement is an available penalty, the process commands scrutiny. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972).
Appellant argues that the right to counsel articulated in Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra, and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), is meaningless without a lawyer-judge to understand the arguments of counsel. Appellant also argues that the increased complexity of substantive and procedural criminal law requires that all judges now be lawyers in order to be able to rule correctly on the intricate issues lurking even in some simple misdemeanor cases. In the context of the Kentucky procedures, however, it is unnecessary to reach the question whether a defendant could be convicted and imprisoned after a proceeding in which the only trial afforded is conducted by a lay judge. In all instances, a defendant in Kentucky facing a criminal sentence is afforded an opportunity to be tried de novo in a court presided over by a lawyer-judge since an appeal automatically vacates the conviction in police court. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23.032 (1971); Ky. Rule Crim. Proc. 12.06. The trial de novo is available after either a trial or a plea of guilty in the police court; a defendant is entitled to bail while awaiting the trial de novo. 516 S. W. 2d 103 (1974).
It is obvious that many defendants charged with a traffic violation or other misdemeanor may be uncoun-seled when they appear before the police court. They may be unaware of their right to a de novo trial after a judgment is entered since the decision is likely to be prompt. We assume that police court judges recognize their obligation under Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra, to inform defendants of their right to a lawyer if a sentence of confinement is to be imposed. The appellee judge testified that informing defendants of a right to counsel was “the standard procedure.” App. 32. We also assume that police court judges in Kentucky recognize their obligation to inform all convicted defendants, including those who waived counsel or for whom imprisonment was not imposed, of their unconditional right to a trial de novo and of the necessity that an “appeal” be filed within 30 days in order to implement that right. Ky. Rule Crim. Proc. 12.04.
In Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104 (1972), we considered Kentucky’s two-tier system there challenged on other grounds. We noted:
“The right to a new trial is absolute. A defendant need not allege error in the inferior court proceeding. If he seeks a new trial, the Kentucky statutory scheme contemplates that the slate be wiped clean. Ky. Rule Crim. Proc. 12.06. Prosecution and defense begin anew. . . . The case is to be regarded exactly as if it had been brought there in the first instance.” Id., at 113.
We went on to note that the justifications urged by States for continuing such tribunals are the “increasing burdens on state judiciaries” and the “interest of both the defendant and the State, to provide speedier and less costly adjudications” than those provided in courts “where the full range of constitutional guarantees is available . . . Id., at 114. Moreover, state policy takes into account that it is a convenience to those charged to be tried in or near their own community, rather than travel to a distant court where a law-trained judge is provided, and to have the option, as here, of a trial after regular business hours. We took note of these practical considerations in Colten:
“We are not persuaded, however, that the Kentucky arrangement for dealing with the less serious offenses disadvantages defendants any more or any less than trials conducted in a court of general jurisdiction in the first instance, as long as the latter are always available. Proceedings in the inferior courts are simple and speedy, and, if the results in Colten’s case are any evidence, the penalty is not characteristically severe. Such proceedings offer a defendant the opportunity to learn about the prosecution's case and, if he chooses, he need not reveal his own. He may also plead guilty without a trial and promptly secure a de novo trial in a court of general criminal jurisdiction.” Id., at 118-119.
Under Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57, 61-62 (1972), appellant argues that he is entitled to a lawyer-judge in the first instance. There the judge was also mayor and the village received a substantial portion of its income from fines imposed by him as judge. Similarly in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927), the challenge was directed not at the training or education of the judge but at his possible bias due to interest in the outcome of the case, because as in Mon-roeville he was both mayor and judge and received a portion of his compensation directly from the fines. Financial interest in the fines was thought to risk a possible bias in finding guilt and fixing the amount of fines, and • the. Court found that potential for bias impermissible.
Under the Kentucky system, as we noted in Colten, a defendant can have an initial trial before a lawyer-judge by pleading guilty in the police court, thus bypassing that court and seeking the de novo trial, “erasing . . . any consequence that would otherwise follow from tendering the [guilty] plea.” 407 U. S., at 119-120.
Our concern in prior cases with judicial functions being performed by nonjudicial officers has also been directed at the need for independent, neutral, and detached judgment, not at legal training. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 449-453 (1971). See also, e. g., Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560, 564 (1971); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 356 (1967); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 481-482 (1963). Yet cases such as Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U. S. 345 (1972), are relevant; lay magistrates and other judicial officers empowered to issue warrants must deal with evaluation of such legal concepts as probable cause and the sufficiency of warrant affidavits. Indeed, in Shadwick the probable-cause evaluation made by the lay magistrate related to a charge of “impaired driving.”
(3)
Appellant’s second claim is that Kentucky’s constitutional provisions classifying cities by population and its statutory provisions permitting lay judges to preside in some cities while requiring law-trained judges in others denies him the equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, all people within a given city and within cities of the same size are treated equally.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals in Ditty v. Hampton, supra, articulated reasons for the differing qualifications of police court judges in cities of different size:
“1. The greater volume of court business in the larger cities requires that judges be attorneys to enable the courts to operate efficiently and expeditiously (not necessarily with more fairness and impartiality).
“2. Lawyers with whom to staff the courts are more available in the larger cities.
“3. The larger cities have greater financial resources with which to provide better qualified personnel and better facilities for the courts.” 490 S. W. 2d, at 776.
That court then noted: “That population and area factors may justify classifications within a court system has long been recognized.” Id., at 776-777. The Court of Appeals relied upon Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22 (1880), which held that as long as all people within the classified area are treated equally:
“Each State . . . may establish one system of courts for cities and another for rural districts, one system for one portion of its territory and another system for another portion. Convenience, if not necessity, often requires this to be done, and it would seriously interfere with the power of a State to regulate its internal affairs to deny to it this right.” Id., at 30-31.
See generally Salsburg v. Maryland, 346 U. S. 545 (1954); Fay v. New York, 332 U. S. 261 (1947); Manes v. Goldin, 400 F. Supp. 23 (EDNY 1975) (three-judge court), summarily aff’d, 423 U. S. 1068 (1976).
We conclude that the Kentucky two-tier trial court system with lay judicial officers in the first tier in smaller cities and an appeal of right with a de novo trial before a traditionally law-trained judge in the second does not violate either the due process or equal protection guarantees of the Constitution of the United States; accordingly the judgment before us is
Affirmed.
Me. Justice Brennan concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The offense now carries the same monetary fine schedule, but a second offense now requires imprisonment for not less than three days and not more than six months; any subsequent offense requires imprisonment for not less than 30 days and not more than 12 months. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 189.990 (9) (a) (Supp. 1974).
A second-class city (population 20,000-100,000) police judge must be at least 25, a resident of the city for four years, and an attorney at law. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §26.150 (Supp. 1974). A third-class city (population 8,000-20,000) and a fourth-class city (population 3,000-8,000) police judge must be at least 24 and a city resident. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §26.190 (1971).
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky at its 1974 session, by Senate Bill 183, enacted an Act proposing an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution relating to the judicial branch of government. On November 4, 1975, the Kentucky voters ratified the judicial amendment to the Kentucky Constitution, effective January 1, 1976. It provides, in part, that by January 1, 1978, all the county, quarterly, justice of the peace, and police courts will be combined into one district court in each of the 120 counties. These counties are to be allocated among 55 districts and each district is to elect at least one district judge who must be an attorney licensed in Kentucky. A district judge in multieounty districts must appoint a trial commissioner for each county in which no district judge resides. The commissioner must be an attorney if one is qualified and available. The commissioner will have the power to perform such duties of the district court as may be prescribed by the Kentucky Supreme Court.
The case is not mooted by this judicial amendment since the police courts will continue to function as challenged until January 1, 1978, and since the new amendment still permits nonlawyer judges to sit. These judges may have power to impose prison sentences if the Kentucky Supreme Court so provides.
Article III of the United States Constitution, of course, unlike provisions of some state constitutions, see, e. g., N. Y. Const., Art. 6, § 20 (a); S. D. Const., Art. 5, §§ 10, 25, is silent as to any requirement that judges of the United States’ courts, including Justices of the Supreme Court, be lawyers or “learned in the law.” We note that in excess of 95% of all criminal cases in England are tried before lay judicial officers. See D. Karlen, Judicial Administration: The American Experience 32 (1970); H. Abraham, The Judicial Process 246-247, and n. 4 (2d ed. 1968). We also note that many of the States in the United States which utilize nonlawyer judges provide mandatory or voluntary training programs, see, e. g., Iowa Code Ann. §602.50 (6) (1975); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §49:251.1 (Supp. 1976); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 7-5-59, 9-11-3 (1972); Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 93-401 (Supp. 1975); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 5.026 (1973); N. Y. Uniform Justice Court Act § 105 (Supp. 1975-1976); N. C. Sess. Laws, c. 956, §11 (1975); N. D. Cent. Code §27-18-08 (Interim Supp. 1975); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 42, §1214 (Supp. 1976-1977); Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-27 (Supp. 1975); and training manuals, see, e. g., G. Brownlee, The Montana Justice of the Peace and Police Judge (1970). The brief of amicus curiae New York State Association of Magistrates informs us that, of the States that have nonlawyer judges, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming have mandatory training programs, and Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hamsphire, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin have voluntary training programs.
We observed in Colten v. Kentucky that in the first-tier tribunals, “[s]ome [States], including Kentucky, do not record proceedings and the judges may not be trained for their positions either by experience or schooling.” 407 U. S., at 114. We took note of the Kentucky Court of Appeals' comment that “ 'the inferior courts are not designed or equipped to conduct error-free trials, or to insure full recognition of constitutional freedoms. They are courts of convenience, to provide speedy and inexpensive means of disposition of charges of minor offenses.’ Colten v. Commonwealth, 467 S. W. 2d, at 379.” Id., at 117.
In Shadwick we cautioned:
“[0]ur federal system warns of converting desirable practice into constitutional commandment. It recognizes in plural and diverse state activities one key to national innovation and vitality. States are entitled to some flexibility and leeway . . . .” 407 U. S., at 353-354.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Power Commission has awarded Pacific Northwest Power Company (a joint venture of four private power companies) a license to construct a hydroelectric power project at High Mountain Sheep, a site on the Snake River, a mile upstream from its confluence with the Salmon. 31 F. P. C. 247, 1051. The Court of Appeals approved the action, 123 U. S. App. D. C. 209, 358 F. 2d 840; and we granted the petitions for certiorari. 385 U. S. 926, 927.
The primary question in the cases involves an interpretation of § 7 (b) of the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, as amended by the Federal Power Act, 49 Stat. 842, 16 U. S. C. § 800 (b), which provides:
“Whenever, in the judgment of the Commission, the development of any water resources for public purposes should be undertaken by the United States itself, the Commission shall not approve any application for any project affecting such development, but shall cause to be made such examinations, surveys, reports, plans, and estimates of the cost of the proposed development as it may find necessary, and shall submit its findings to Congress with such recommendations as it may find appropriate concerning such development.”
The question turns on whether § 7 (b) requires a showing that licensing of a private, state, or municipal agency is a satisfactory alternative to federal development. We put the question that way because the present record is largely silent on the relative merits of federal and non-federal development. What transpired is as follows:
Both Pacific Northwest and Washington Public Power Supply System, allegedly a “municipality” under § 4 (e) and under § 7 (a) of the Act, filed applications for licenses on mutually exclusive sites; and they were consolidated for hearing. Before the hearing the Commission solicited the views of the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary urged postponement of the licensing of either project while means of protecting the salmon and other fisheries were studied. That was on March 15,1961. But the hearings went forward and on June 28, 1962, after the record before the Examiner was closed, but before he rendered his decision, the Secretary wrote the Commission urging it to recommend to Congress the consideration of federal construction of High Mountain Sheep. The Commission reopened the record to allow the Secretary’s letter to be incorporated and invited the parties to file supplemental briefs in response to it. On October 8, 1962, the Examiner rendered his decision, recommending that Pacific Northwest receive the license. He disposed of the issue of federal development on the ground that there “is no evidence in this record that Federal development will provide greater flood control, power benefits, fish passage, navigation or recreation; and there is substantial evidence to the contrary.”
The Secretary asked for leave to intervene and to file exceptions to the Examiner’s decision. The Commission allowed intervention “limited to filing of exceptions to the Presiding Examiner’s decision and participation in such oral argument as might subsequently be ordered.”
The Secretary filed exceptions and participated in oral argument. The Commission on February 5, 1964, affirmed the Examiner saying that it agreed with him “that the record supports no reason why federal development should be superior,” observing that “[w]hile we have extensive material before us on the position of the Secretary of the Interior, there is no evidence in the record presented by him to support his position.” 31 F. P. C., at 275.
It went on to say that it found “nothing in this record to indicate” that the public purposes of the dam (flood control, etc.) would not be served as adequately by Pacific Northwest as they would under federal development. And it added, “We agree that the Secretary (or any single operator) normally would have a superior ability to co-ordinate the operations of HMS with the other affected projects on the river. But there is no evidence upon which we can determine the scope or the seriousness of this matter in the context of a river system which already has a number of different project operators and an existing co-ordination system, i. e., the Northwest Power Pool.” Id., at 276-277.
The Secretary petitioned for a rehearing, asking that the record be opened to permit him to supply the evi-dentiary deficiencies. A rehearing, but not a reopening of the record, was granted; and the Commission shortly reaffirmed its original decision with modifications not material here.
The issue of federal development has never been explored in this record. The applicants introduced no evidence addressed to that question; and the Commission denied the Secretary an opportunity to do so though his application was timely. The issue was of course briefed and argued; yet no factual inquiry was undertaken. Section 7 (b) says “Whenever, in the judgment of the Commission, the development of any water resources for public purposes should be undertaken by the United States itself,” the Commission shall not approve other applications. Yet the Commission by its rulings on the applications of the Secretary to intervene and to reopen precluded it from having the informed judgment that § 7 (b) commands.
We indicate no judgment on the merits. We do know that on the Snake-Columbia waterway between High Mountain Sheep and the ocean, eight hydroelectric dams have been built and another authorized. These are federal projects; and if another dam is to be built, the question whether it should be under federal auspices looms large. Timed releases of stored water at High Mountain Sheep may affect navigability; they may affect hydroelectric production of the downstream dams when the river level is too low for the generators to be operated at maximum capacity; they may affect irrigation; and they may protect salmon runs when the water downstream is too hot or insufficiently oxygenated. Federal versus private or municipal control may conceivably make a vast difference in the functioning of the vast river complex.
Beyond that is the question whether any dam should be constructed.
As to this the Secretary in his letter to the Commission dated November 21, 1960, in pleading for a deferment of consideration of applications stated:
“In carrying out this Department’s responsibility for the protection and conservation of the vital Northwest anadromous fishery resource and in light of the fact that the power to be available as a result of ratification of the proposed Columbia River treaty with Canada will provide needed time which can be devoted to further efforts to resolve the fishery problems presently posed by these applications, we believe that it is unnecessary at this time and for some years to come to undertake any project in this area.
“You may be assured that the Fish and Wildlife Service of this Department will continue, with renewed emphasis, the engineering and research studies that must be done before we can be assured that the passage of anadromous fish can be provided for at these proposed projects.”
Since the cases must be remanded to the Commission, it is appropriate to refer to that aspect of the cases.
Section 10 (a) of the Act provides that “the project adopted” shall be such “as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway... and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes.” (Emphasis added.)
The objective of protecting “recreational purposes” means more than that the reservoir created by the dam will be the best one possible or practical from a recreational viewpoint. There are already eight lower dams on this Columbia River system and a ninth one authorized; and if the Secretary is right in fearing that this additional dam would destroy the waterway as spawning grounds for anadromous fish (salmon and steelhead) or seriously impair that function, the project is put in an entirely different fight. The importance of salmon and steelhead in our outdoor fife as well as in commerce is so great that there certainly comes a time when their destruction might necessitate a halt in so-called “improvement” or “development” of waterways. The destruction of anadro-mous fish in our western waters is so notorious that we cannot believe that Congress through the present Act authorized their ultimate demise.
We need not speculate as to what the 1920 purpose may have been. For the 1965 Anadromous Fish Act, 79 Stat. 1125, 16 U. S. C. §§ 757a-757f (1964 ed., Supp. II), is on this aspect of the present case in parí materia with the 1920 Act. We know from § 1 of the 1965 Act that Congress is greatly concerned with the depletion of these fish resources “from water resources developments and other causes.” See also H. R. Rep. No. 1007, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 2-5; S. Rep. No. 860, 89th Cong., 1st Sess.; Anadromous Fish, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 133; Anadromous Fish, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 11. The rapid depletion of the Nation’s anadromous fish resources led Congress to enact the Anadromous Fish Act which authorizes federal-state cooperation for the conservation, development, and enhancement of the Nation’s anadromous fish resources and to prevent their depletion from various causes including water resources development. In passing the Act, Congress was well aware that the responsibility for the destruction of the anadromous fish population partially lies with the “improvement” and “development” of water resources. It directed the Secretary of the Interior “to conduct such studies and make such recommendations as the Secretary determines to be appropriate regarding the development and management of any stream or other body of water for the conservation and enhancement of anadromous fishery resources.” § 2.
Mr. Justice Holmes once wrote that “A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure.” New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336, 342. That dictum is relevant here for the Commission under § 10 of the 1920 Act, as amended, must take into consideration not only hydroelectric power, navigation, and flood control, but also the “recreational purposes” served by the river. And, as we have noted, the Secretary of the Interior has a mandate under the 1965 Act to study recommendations concerning water development programs for the purpose of the conservation of anadromous fish. Thus apart from § 7 (b) of the 1920 Act, as amended, the Secretary by reason of § 2 of the 1965 Act comes to the Federal Power Commission with a special mandate from Congress, a mandate that gives him special standing to appear, to intervene, to introduce evidence on the proposed river development program, and to participate fully in the administrative proceedings.
Fishing is obviously one recreational use of the river and it also has vast commercial implications as the legislative history of the 1965 Act indicates. The Commission, to be sure, did not wholly neglect this phase of the problem. In its report it adverted to the anadromous fish problem, stating that it was “highly controversial” and was not “clearly resolved on record.” The reservoir is “the most important hazard” both to upstream migrants and downstream migrants. Upstream migrants can be handled quite effectively by fish ladders. But those traveling downstream must go through the turbines; and their mortality is high. Moreover, Chinook salmon are “basically river fish and do not appear to adapt to the different conditions presented by a reservoir.” 31F. P. C., •at 260. The ecology of a river is different from the ecology of a reservoir built behind a dam. What the full effect on salmon will be is not known. But we get a glimmering from the Commission’s report. As to this the Commission said:
“A reservoir exhibits a peculiar thermal structure. During the winter it is homogeneous with regard to temperature, but as the season advances a horizontal stratification results with the colder water sinking lower. Since Salmon River water is colder than Snake River water, it is possible, if not probable, that in the Nez Perce reservoir the water from the two rivers would be found in separate layers and be drawn off at different times. Presumably the upstream migrants reaching fish ladders might at one time be presented with water from one river and at another time water from the other river. If water quality is important in attracting the upstream migrants to their proper streams, as many experts believe, this stratification would be a source of confusion and delay. Also a source of confusion to the upstream migrants would be the predicted tendency shown by the record for water from the Salmon River arm of the Nez Perce reservoir to flow up the Snake River arm and vice versa. Again the fish are faced with a complicated problem in finding their way.
“The velocity of flow in the Nez Perce or HMS reservoir would be very low compared with the free flowing stream or even compared to the flow in the reservoir of the McNary dam on the Columbia. Since the upstream migrants follow water flow and downstream migrants are carried by current, such low velocities offer a further obstacle to the passage of anadromous fish.
“The record also shows that during the summer months the oxygen content of the water in the reservoir at the lower levels will fall to amounts which are dangerously insufficient for salmon. The decrease in oxygen content appears to be due to decomposed sinking dead organisms (plankton) from the upper layers of water. The record indicates that salmon require an oxygen content of approximately five parts per million, yet the oxygen content at the 250-350 foot level would fall in August to less than three parts per million.” 31 F. P. C., at 261.
The Commission further noted that some salmon remain in the reservoir due to “loss of water velocity or accumulation of dissolved salts” and are lost “as perpet-uators of the species.” But it did not have statistics showing the loss of the downstream migrants as a result of passing through the turbines. We are told from studies of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries that the greatest downstream migration occurs at night when turbine loads are lower. We are told from these studies that the effect of dams on the downstream migration of salmon and steelhead may be disastrous. It is reported that unless practical alternatives are designed, such as the collection of juvenile fish above the dams and their transportation below it, we may witness an inquest on a great industry and a great “recreational” asset of the Nation.
In his letter of November 21, 1960, the Secretary of the Interior noted the adverse effects this present project would have on anadromous fish, that the facilities proposed to protect the fish were “unproved,” and that “conservation in the fullest sense calls for a deferral while full advantage is taken of the opportunity presented by Canadian storage and Libby [Dam].” The Commission admitted that “high dams and reservoirs present major obstacles to anadromous fish,” that it was not optimistic “as to the efficacy of fish passage facilities on high dams,” and concluded with the forlorn statement that, “We can hope for the best and we will continue to insist that any licensee building a high dam at a site which presumably involves major fish runs do everything possible within the limits of reasonable expense to preserve the fish runs. But as of now we understandably must assume that the best efforts will be only partly successful and that real damage may and probably will be done to any such fish runs.” 31 F. P. C., at 262.
Equally relevant is the effect of the project on wildlife. In his letter of November 21, 1960, the Secretary of the Interior noted that the areas of the proposed projects were important wildlife sanctuaries, inhabited by elk, deer, partridge, a variety of small game and used by ducks, geese, and mourning doves during migration. He concluded that “adverse effects of the proposed project [HMS] on wildlife could [not] be mitigated.” Letter of November 21, 1960 (Joint App. 133), as corrected by letter of December 7, 1960 (J. A. 137). The Secretary concluded that “Several thousand acres of mule deer range would be inundated and there would be a moderate reduction in the number of deer as a result of loss of range. There would be losses of upland game, fur animals, and waterfowl. Reservoir margins would be barren and unattractive to all wildlife groups. Waterfowl use of the reservoir would be insignificant. There does not appear to be any feasible means of mitigating wildlife losses.”
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 48 Stat. 401, as amended, 72 Stat. 563, 16 U. S. C. § 661 et seq., establishes a national policy of “recognizing the vital contribution of our wildlife resources to the Nation, the increasing public interest and significance thereof due to expansion of our national economy and other factors, and to provide that wildlife conservation shall receive equal consideration and be co-ordinated with other features of water-resource development programs....” Section 2 (a), 16 U. S. C. § 662 (a), provides that an agency evaluating a license under which “the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed... to be impounded” “first shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior... with a view to the conservation of wildlife resources by preventing loss of and damage to such resources....” Certainly the wildlife conservation aspect of the project must be explored and evaluated.
These factors of the anadromous fish and of other wildlife may indeed be all-important in light of the alternate sources of energy that are emerging.
In his letter of November 21, 1960, the Secretary noted that, due to increased power resources, the projects could be safely deferred. “These projects could extend the time still further, as could also be the case in the event nuclear power materialized at Hanford in the 1960-1970 period. This possibility, as you know, has been under intensive study by your staff for the Atomic Energy Commission....”
The urgency of the hydroelectric power at High Mountain Sheep was somewhat discounted by the Secretary in his petition to intervene:
“Power needs of the Northwest do not require immediate construction of the High Mountain Sheep Project. One of the reasons which leads the Secretary to intervene now is that the Examiner’s decision of October 10, 1962, was handed down just prior to Congressional action which substantially altered the federal power resource program of the Pacific Northwest. This Congressional action requires a complete re-examination and re-appraisement of the conclusions stated as the basis for the Examiner’s findings.
“The action of Congress in the session just concluded has made provisions for new federal power producing facilities. Bruc[e]s Eddy Dam, with a peak capacity of 345,000 KW, was authorized and received an appropriation for the start of construction in Fiscal Year 1963. Asotin Dam, with a peak capacity of 331,000 KW, was also authorized. Little Goose Dam, with a peak capacity of 466,000 KW, which had previously been authorized, received an appropriation for the start of construction in 1963. Most important of all, generation at the Hanford Thermal Project, which would add approximately 905,000 kilowatts to the Northwest’s power resources was also approved.
“There are other possibilities regarding new power sources which have reasonable prospects of realization. They include Canadian storage, realization of which is dependent upon consummation of the Canadian Treaty. Additional firm capacity which would accrue to the United States from such storage would be 1,300,000 kilowatts. In addition, the Treaty would allow the construction of Libby Dam which would initially have a capacity of 397,000 kilowatts. There is also the possibility of the availability in the United States of power from the Canadian entitlement under the Treaty of 1,300,000 kilowatts. Plans are also under way for construction of a 500,000 kilowatt steam plant by Kittitas PUD and Grant County PUD. A number of different agencies have proposed the construction of the Pacific Northwest-Southwest transmission intertie which, by electrical integration, would add an additional 400,000 kilowatts of firm capacity for the Pacific Northwest.
“The total power resource of the area is therefore predictably in excess of all foreseeable requirements thereon for the period through 1968-1969 and sufficient to meet all requirements until at least 1972-1973 and potentially for years beyond that date. The addition of High Mountain Sheep Dam will not be needed until at least 1972-1973, and construction should be planned to bring it into production at that time or later as the developing power resource picture indicates.
“New generating facilities, which are not correlated to the power resources and power demands within the area of the marketing responsibility of BPA necessarily result in surpluses of power on the federal system which is the basic wholesale supplier of power in the area and thereby result in financial deficits on the federal marketing system. In view of the role of the Federal system as the base supplier for the area, this threatens the stability of the area’s permanent resources and hence of the area’s economy. The High Mountain Sheep project at this time would have such an effect.”
We are also told that hydroelectric power promises to occupy a relatively small place in the world’s supply of energy. It is estimated that when the world’s population reaches 7,000,000,000 — as it will in a few decades — the total energy requirement will be 70,000,000,000 metric tons of coal or equivalent annually and that it will be supplied as follows: „., ^
„., ^ Equivalent metric tons of Source coal (billions)
Solar energy (for two-thirds of space heating). 15.6
Hydroelectricity. 4.2
Wood for lumber and paper. 2.7
Wood for conversion to liquid fuels and chemicals. 2.3
Liquid fuels and “petro” chemicals produced via nuclear energy. 10.0
Nuclear electricity. 35.2
Total 70.0
Brown, The Next Hundred Years (1957), p. 113.
By 1980 nuclear energy “should represent a significant proportion of world power production.” Id., at 109. By the end of the century “nuclear energy may account for about one-third of our total energy consumption.” Ibid. “By the middle of the next century it seems likely that most of our energy needs will be satisfied by nuclear energy.” Id., at 110.
Group, Under Direction of A. B. Cambel, at 22. The following table is taken from that source.
Percent of total energy requirements supplied by hydro, nuclear, and fossil fuels
Some of these time schedules are within the period of the 50-year licenses granted by the Commission.
Nuclear energy is coming to the Columbia River basin by 1975. For plans are afoot to build a plant on the Trogan site, 14 miles north of St. Helens. This one plant will have a capacity of 1,000,000 kws. This emphasizes the relevancy of the Secretary’s reference to production and distribution of nuclear energy at the Hanford Thermal Project which he called “most important of all” and which Congress has authorized. 76 Stat. 604.
Implicit in the reasoning of the Commission and the Examiner is the assumption that this project must be built and that it must be built now. In the view of the Commission, one of the factors militating against federal development was that “[t]he Department of Interior... frankly admitted it [had] no present intention of seeking authorization to commence construction or planning to construct an HMS project.” 31 F. P. C., at 277. The Examiner’s report stated that “[a] comprehensive plan provides for prompt and optimum multipurpose development of the water resource” and that the relative merits of the proposed projects “turn on a comparison of the costs and benefits of component developments and on which project is best adapted to attain optimum development at the earliest time with the smallest sacrifice of natural values.” J. A. 394 (emphasis added). But neither the Examiner nor the Commission specifically found that deferral of the project would not be in the public interest or that immediate development would be more in the public interest than construction at some future time or no construction at all. Section 4 (e) of the Act, the section authorizing the Commission to grant licenses, provides in part:
“Whenever the contemplated improvement is, in the judgment of the Commission, desirable and justified in the public interest for the purpose of improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, a finding to that effect shall be made by the Commission and shall become a part of the records of the Commission.” 49 Stat. 840, 16 U. S. C. § 797 (e).
And § 10 (a) of the Act provides that:
“the project adopted... shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes....” 49 Stat. 842, 16 U. S. C. § 803 (a).
The issues of whether deferral of construction would be more in the public interest than immediate construction and whether preservation of the reaches of the river affected would be more desirable and in the public interest than the proposed development are largely unexplored in this record. We cannot assume that the Act commands the immediate construction of as many projects as possible. The Commission did discuss the Secretary of Interior’s claim that, due to alternate power sources, the region will not need the power supplied by the High Mountain Sheep dam for some time. And it concluded that “[o]f more significance... than the regional power situation are the load and resources of the [Pacific Northwest Power Company] companies themselves,” which could use the power in the near future. 31 F. P. C., at 272. It added, “In summary as to the need for power, we conclude that the PNPC sponsoring companies will be able to use HMS power as soon as it is available.” 31 F. P. C., at 273. On rehearing, the Commission stated that “HMS power will be needed on a regional basis by 1970-1971 _” 31 F. P. C. 1051, 1052.
The question whether the proponents of a project “will be able to use” the power supplied is relevant to the issue of the public interest. So too is the regional need for the additional power. But the inquiry should not stop there. A license under the Act empowers the licensee to construct, for its own use and benefit, hydroelectric projects utilizing the flow of navigable waters and thus, in effect, to appropriate water resources from the public domain. The grant of authority to the Commission to alienate federal water resources does not, of course, turn simply on whether the project will be beneficial to the licensee..Nor is the test solely whether the region will be able to use the additional power. The test is whether the project will be in the public interest. And that determination can be made only after an exploration of all issues relevant to the “public interest,” including future power demand and supply, alternate sources of power, the public interest in preserving reaches of wild rivers and wilderness areas, the preservation of anadromous fish for commercial and recreational purposes, and the protection of wildlife.
The need to destroy the river as a waterway, the desirability of its demise, the choices available to satisfy future demands for energy — these are all relevant to a decision under § 7 and § 10 but they were largely untouched by the Commission.
On our remand there should be an exploration of these neglected phases of the cases, as well as the other points raised by the Secretary.
We express no opinion on the merits. It is not our task to determine whether any dam at all should be built or whether if one is authorized it should be private or public. If the ultimate ruling under § 7 (b) is that the decision concerning the High Mountain Sheep site should be made by the Congress, the factors we have mentioned will be among the many considerations it doubtless will appraise. If the ultimate decision under § 7 (b) is the other way, the Commission will not have discharged its functions under the Act unless it makes an informed judgment on these phases of the cases.
This leaves us with the questions presented by Washington Public Power Supply System in No. 462. The main points raised by it are that it is a “municipality” within the meaning of § 7 (a) and therefore entitled to a preference over this power site, that the Commission violated that statutory preference, and that while Pacific Northwest had a prior preliminary permit granted under § 5 of the Act, the Commission unlawfully expanded it to include this site. We express no opinion on the merits of these contentions because they may or may not survive a remand. If in time the project, if any, becomes a federal one, Washington Public Power Supply System would be excluded along with Pacific Northwest, and the points now raised by it would become moot. If in time a new license is issued to Pacific Northwest, the points now raised by Washington Public Power Supply System can be preserved. Accordingly in No. 462 we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to remand to the Commission. In No. 463 we reverse the judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to remand to the Commission. Each remand is for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Section 4 of the Act provides in part:
“The Commission is hereby authorized and empowered—
“(a) To make investigations and to collect and record data concerning the utilization of the water resources of any region to be developed, the water-power industry and its relation to other industries and to interstate or foreign commerce, and concerning the location, capacity, development costs, and relation to markets of power sites, and whether the power from Government dams can be advantageously used by the United States for its public purposes, and what is a fair value of such power, to the extent the Commission may deem necessary or useful for the purposes of this Act.
“(e) To issue licenses to citizens of the United States, or to any association of such citizens, or to any corporation organized under the laws of the United States or any State thereof, or to any State or municipality for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining dams, water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission lines, or other project works necessary or convenient for the development and improvement of navigation and for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across, along, from, or in any of the streams or other bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, or upon any part of the public lands and reservations of the United States (including the Territories), or for the purpose of utilizing the surplus water or water power from any Government dam, except as herein provided....” 49 Stat. 839, 840, 16 U. S. C. §§797 (a), (e).
See n. 1, supra, for §4 (e). Section 7 (a) of the Act provides:
“In issuing preliminary permits hereunder or licenses where no preliminary permit has been issued and in issuing licenses to new licensees under section 15 hereof the Commission shall give preference to applications therefor by States and municipalities, provided the plans for the same are deemed by the Commission equally well adapted, or shall within a reasonable time to be fixed by the Commission be made equally well adapted, to conserve and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region....” 49 Stat. 842, 16 U. S. C. § 800 (a).
The Secretary argued that federal development of High Mountain Sheep is necessary because (1) hydraulic and electrical coordination with other Columbia River Basin projects, particularly the federal dams already or to be constructed on the downstream sites, could be more effectively achieved if High Mountain Sheep is a part of the federal system; (2) federal development will assure maximum use of the federal northwest transmission grid, thus contributing to maximum repayment of the federal investment in transmission, which will, in turn, redound to the benefit of the power consumers; (3) federal development would provide greater flexibility and protection in the management of fish resources; (4) flood control could better be effected by flexible federal operation; (5) storage releases for navigation requirements could be made under federal ownership and supervision with less effect on power supply; (6) federal development can better provide recreational facilities for an expanding population. The Secretary noted, however, that immediate construction of the project would produce an excess of power in the Pacific Northwest which would cause large losses to Bonneville Power Administration and severe harm to the region’s economy.
Various federal agencies have been long engaged in the development of a comprehensive plan for the improvement of the Middle Snake. As early as 1948 the Secretary of the Interior submitted a comprehensive plan for the development of water resources of the Columbia River Basin. In 1949 the Corps of Engineers submitted a comprehensive plan for the development of the Columbia River Basin. H. R. Doc. No. 531, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 1, pp. 1-3, Vol. 4, pp. 1429, 1482, Vol. 6, p. 2509. The plan recommended, in part, federal construction of nine run-of-the-river dams downstream from High Mountain Sheep and a regulating reservoir for the nine dams at Hells Canyon on the upper Snake. The nine dams were all authorized by Congress and have been or, in one case, will be constructed as federal projects in accordance with the plan. Hells Canyon was later licensed for private development, and, according to the Secretary of the Interior, without adequate regulating facilities. The Corps of Engineers and the Secretary of the Interior then recommended that the federal regulating dam be built, after further study, at High Mountain Sheep — the last suitable site. H. R. Doc. No. 403, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 1, pp. iv, viii-ix, 260. Though it is not contended that congressional authorization of the nine federal dams downstream may have pre-empted the Commission's authority to license High Mountain Sheep for private development (cf. Chapman v. Federal Power Comm’n, 345 U. S. 153), it is argued that Congress appropriated vast sums for federal development of the Columbia River Basin’s hydroelectric resources in accordance with an overall plan that contemplated that the key structure in the system would be federally operated and that the downstream dams can be efficiently operated only if High Mountain Sheep is federally operated.
“All licenses issued under this Part shall be on the following conditions:
“(a) That the project adopted, including the maps, plans, and specifications, shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes; and if necessary in order to secure such plan the Commission shall have authority to require the modification of any project and of the plans and specifications of the project works before approval.” 49 Stat. 842, 16 U. S. C. §803 (a).
In 1966 the value of the Pacific salmon catch was over $67,000,000 and in 1965 over $65,000,000. United States Department of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Fisheries of the United States, 1966, p. 2. As noted by the Commission, “the Columbia River is the greatest producer of Pacific salmon and steelhead trout in the United States.” “Columbia River
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice ROBERTSdelivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal law generally provides whistleblower protections to an employee who discloses information revealing "any violation of any law, rule, or regulation," or "a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A). An exception exists, however, for disclosures that are "specifically prohibited by law." Ibid.Here, a federal air marshal publicly disclosed that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had decided to cut costs by removing air marshals from certain long-distance flights. The question presented is whether that disclosure was "specifically prohibited by law."
I
A
In 2002, Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act, 116 Stat. 2135. As relevant here, that Act provides that the TSA "shall prescribe regulations prohibiting the disclosure of information obtained or developed in carrying out security... if the Under Secretary decides that disclosing the information would... be detrimental to the security of transportation." 49 U.S.C. § 114(r)(1)(C).
Around the same time, the TSA promulgated regulations prohibiting the unauthorized disclosure of what it called "sensitive security information." See 67 Fed.Reg. 8351 (2002). The regulations described 18 categories of sensitive security information, including "[s]pecific details of aviation security measures... [such as] information concerning specific numbers of Federal Air Marshals, deployments or missions, and the methods involved in such operations." 49 CFR § 1520.7(j) (2002). Sensitive security information is not classified, so the TSA can share it with individuals who do not have a security clearance, such as airport employees. Compare Exec. Order 13526, § 4.1, 3 CFR 298, 314-315 (2009 Comp.), with 49 CFR § 1520.11(c) (2013).
B
Robert J. MacLean became a federal air marshal for the TSA in 2001. In that role, MacLean was assigned to protect passenger flights from potential hijackings. See 49 U.S.C. § 44917(a).
On July 26, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a confidential advisory about a potential hijacking plot. The advisory said that members of the terrorist group al Qaeda were planning to attack passenger flights, and that they "considered suicide hijackings and bombings as the most promising methods to destroy aircraft in flight, as well as to strike ground targets." App. 16. The advisory identified a number of potential targets, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, and the east coast of the United States. Finally, the advisory warned that at least one of the attacks "could be executed by the end of the summer 2003." Ibid.
The TSA soon summoned all air marshals (including MacLean) for face-to-face briefings about the hijacking plot. During MacLean's briefing, a TSA official told him that the hijackers were planning to "smuggle weapons in camera equipment or children's toys through foreign security," and then "fly into the United States... into an airport that didn't require them to be screened." Id.,at 92. The hijackers would then board U.S. flights, "overpower the crew or the Air Marshals and... fly the planes into East Coast targets." Id.,at 93.
A few days after the briefing, MacLean received from the TSA a text message cancelling all overnight missions from Las Vegas until early August. MacLean, who was stationed in Las Vegas, believed that cancelling those missions during a hijacking alert was dangerous. He also believed that the cancellations were illegal, given that federal law required the TSA to put an air marshal on every flight that "present[s] high security risks," 49 U.S.C. § 44917(a)(2), and provided that "nonstop, long distance flights, such as those targeted on September 11, 2001, should be a priority," § 44917(b). See App. 95, 99, 101.
MacLean therefore asked a supervisor why the TSA had canceled the missions. The supervisor responded that the TSA wanted "to save money on hotel costs because there was no more money in the budget." Id.,at 95. MacLean also called the DHS Inspector General's Office to report the cancellations. But a special agent in that office told him there was "nothing that could be done." Id.,at 97.
Unwilling to accept those responses, MacLean contacted an MSNBC reporter and told him about the canceled missions. In turn, the reporter published a story about the TSA's decision, titled "Air Marshals pulled from key flights." Id.,at 36. The story reported that air marshals would "no longer be covering cross-country or international flights" because the agency did not want them "to incur the expense of staying overnight in hotels." Ibid.The story also reported that the cancellations were "particularly disturbing to some" because they "coincide[d] with a new high-level hijacking threat issued by the Department of Homeland Security." Id.,at 37.
After MSNBC published the story, several Members of Congress criticized the cancellations. Within 24 hours, the TSA reversed its decision and put air marshals back on the flights. Id.,at 50.
At first, the TSA did not know that MacLean was the source of the disclosure. In September 2004, however, MacLean appeared on NBC Nightly News to criticize the TSA's dress code for air marshals, which he believed made them too easy to identify. Although MacLean appeared in disguise, several co-workers recognized his voice, and the TSA began investigating the appearance. During that investigation, MacLean admitted that he had disclosed the text message back in 2003. Consequently, in April 2006, the TSA fired MacLean for disclosing sensitive security information without authorization.
MacLean challenged his firing before the Merit Systems Protection Board, arguing in relevant part that his disclosure was protected whistleblowing activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A). The Board held that MacLean did not qualify for protection under that statute, however, because his disclosure was "specifically prohibited by law." 116 M.S.P.R. 562, 569-572 (2011).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Board's decision. 714 F.3d 1301 (2013). The parties had agreed that, in order for MacLean's disclosure to be "specifically prohibited by law," it must have been "prohibited by a statute rather than by a regulation." Id.,at 1308(emphasis added). Thus, the issue before the court was whether the statute authorizing the TSA's regulations-now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 114(r)(1)-"specifically prohibited" MacLean's disclosure. 714 F.3d, at 1308.
The court first held that Section 114(r)(1)was not a prohibition. The statute did "not expressly prohibit employee disclosures," the court explained, but instead empowered the TSA to "prescribe regulations prohibiting disclosure[s]" if the TSA decided that disclosing the information would harm public safety. Id.,at 1309. The court therefore concluded that MacLean's disclosure was prohibited by a regulation, which the parties had agreed could not be a "law" under Section 2302(b)(8)(A). Ibid.
The court then held that, even if Section 114(r)(1)were a prohibition, it was not "sufficiently specific." Ibid.The court explained that a law is sufficiently specific only if it "requires that matters be withheld from the public as to leave no discretion on the issue, or... establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld." Ibid.(quoting S.Rep. No. 95-969(1978), 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2723). And Section 114(r)(1)did not meet that test because it "provide[d] only general criteria for withholding information and [gave] some discretion to the [TSA] to fashion regulations for prohibiting disclosure." 714 F.3d, at 1309. The court accordingly vacated the Board's decision and remanded for a determination of whether MacLean's disclosure met the other requirements under Section 2302(b)(8)(A). Id.,at 1310-1311.
We granted certiorari. 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2290, 189 L.Ed.2d 172 (2014).
II
Section 2302(b)(8)provides, in relevant part, that a federal agency may not take
"a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant for employment because of
"(A) any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences
"(i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or
"(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety,
"if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs."
The Government argues that this whistleblower statute does not protect MacLean because his disclosure regarding the canceled missions was "specifically prohibited by law" in two ways. First, the Government argues that the disclosure was specifically prohibited by the TSA's regulations on sensitive security information: 49 CFR §§ 1520.5(a)-(b), 1520.7(j) (2003). Second, the Government argues that the disclosure was specifically prohibited by 49 U.S.C. § 114(r)(1), which authorized the TSA to promulgate those regulations. We address each argument in turn.
A
1
In 2003, the TSA's regulations prohibited the disclosure of "[s]pecific details of aviation security measures... [such as] information concerning specific numbers of Federal Air Marshals, deployments or missions, and the methods involved in such operations." 49 CFR § 1520.7(j). MacLean does not dispute before this Court that the TSA's regulations prohibited his disclosure regarding the canceled missions. Thus, the question here is whether a disclosure that is specifically prohibited by regulation is also "specifically prohibited by law" under Section 2302(b)(8)(A). (Emphasis added.)
The answer is no. Throughout Section 2302, Congress repeatedly used the phrase "law, rule, or regulation." For example, Section 2302(b)(1)(E)prohibits a federal agency from discriminating against an employee "on the basis of marital status or political affiliation, as prohibited under any law, rule, or regulation." For another example, Section 2302(b)(6)prohibits an agency from "grant[ing] any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation." And for a third example, Section 2302(b)(9)(A)prohibits an agency from retaliating against an employee for "the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation."
In contrast, Congress did not use the phrase "law, rule, or regulation" in the statutory language at issue here; it used the word "law" standing alone. That is significant because Congress generally acts intentionally when it uses particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another.Russello v. United States,464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983). Thus, Congress's choice to say "specifically prohibited by law" rather than "specifically prohibited by law, rule, or regulation" suggests that Congress meant to exclude rules and regulations.
The interpretive canon that Congress acts intentionally when it omits language included elsewhere applies with particular force here for two reasons. First, Congress used "law" and "law, rule, or regulation" in close proximity-indeed, in the same sentence. § 2302(b)(8)(A)(protecting the disclosure of "any violation of any law, rule, or regulation... if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law"). Second, Congress used the broader phrase "law, rule, or regulation" repeatedly-nine times in Section 2302alone. See §§ 2302(a)(2)(D)(i), (b)(1)(E), (b)(6), (b)(8)(A)(i), (b)(8)(B)(i), (b)(9)(A), (b)(12), (b)(13), (d)(5). Those two aspects of the whistleblower statute make Congress's choice to use the narrower word "law" seem quite deliberate.
We drew the same inference in Department of Treasury, IRS v. FLRA,494 U.S. 922, 110 S.Ct. 1623, 108 L.Ed.2d 914 (1990). There, the Government argued that the word "laws" in one section of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 meant the same thing as the phrase "law, rule, or regulation" in another section of the Act. Id.,at 931, 110 S.Ct. 1623. We rejected that argument as "simply contrary to any reasonable interpretation of the text." Id.,at 932, 110 S.Ct. 1623. Indeed, we held that a statute that referred to "laws" in one section and "law, rule, or regulation" in another "cannot, unless we abandon all pretense at precise communication, be deemed to mean the same thing in both places." Ibid.That inference is even more compelling here, because the statute refers to "law" and "law, rule, or regulation" in the same sentence, rather than several sections apart.
Another part of the statutory text points the same way. After creating an exception for disclosures "specifically prohibited by law," Section 2302(b)(8)(A)goes on to create a second exception for information "specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs." This exception is limited to action taken directly by the President. That suggests that the word "law" in the only other exception is limited to actions by Congress-after all, it would be unusual for the first exception to include action taken by executive agencies, when the second exception requires action by the President himself.
In addition, a broad interpretation of the word "law" could defeat the purpose of the whistleblower statute. If "law" included agency rules and regulations, then an agency could insulate itself from the scope of Section 2302(b)(8)(A)merely by promulgating a regulation that "specifically prohibited" whistleblowing. But Congress passed the whistleblower statute precisely because it did not trust agencies to regulate whistleblowers within their ranks. Thus, it is unlikely that Congress meant to include rules and regulations within the word "law."
2
The Government admits that some regulations fall outside the word "law" as used in Section 2302(b)(8)(A). But, the Government says, that does not mean that allregulations are excluded. The Government suggests two interpretations that would distinguish "law" from "law, rule, or regulation," but would still allow the word "law" to subsume the TSA's regulations on sensitive security information.
First, the Government argues that the word "law" includes all regulations that have the "force and effect of law" (i.e.,legislative regulations), while excluding those that do not (e.g.,interpretive rules). Brief for Petitioner 19-22. The Government bases this argument on our decision in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown,441 U.S. 281, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979). There, we held that legislative regulations generally fall within the meaning of the word "law," and that it would take a "clear showing of contrary legislative intent" before we concluded otherwise. Id.,at 295-296, 99 S.Ct. 1705. Thus, because the TSA's regulations have the force and effect of law, the Government says that they should qualify as "law" under the statute.
The Government's description of Chrysleris accurate enough. But Congress's use of the word "law," in close connection with the phrase "law, rule, or regulation," provides the necessary "clear showing" that "law" does not include regulations. Indeed, using "law" and "law, rule, or regulation" in the same sentence would be a very obscure way of drawing the Government's nuanced distinction between different types of regulations. Had Congress wanted to draw that distinction, there were far easier and clearer ways to do so. For example, at the time Congress passed Section 2302(b)(8)(A), another federal statute defined the words "regulatory order" to include a "rule or regulation, if it has the force and effect of law." 7 U.S.C. § 450c(a) (1976 ed.). Likewise, another federal statute defined the words "State law" to include "all laws, decisions, rules, regulations, or other State action having the effect of law." 29 U.S.C. § 1144(c)(1) (1976 ed.). As those examples show, Congress knew how to distinguish between regulations that had the force and effect of law and those that did not, but chose not to do so in Section 2302(b)(8)(A).
Second, the Government argues that the word "law" includes at least those regulations that were "promulgated pursuant to an express congressional directive." Brief for Petitioner 21. Outside of this case, however, the Government was unable to find a single example of the word "law" being used in that way. Not a single dictionary definition, not a single statute, not a single case. The Government's interpretation happens to fit this case precisely, but it needs more than that to recommend it.
Although the Government argues here that the word "law" includes rules and regulations, it definitively rejected that argument in the Court of Appeals. For example, the Government's brief accepted that the word "law" meant "legislative enactment," and said that the "only dispute" was whether 49 U.S.C. § 114(r)(1)"serve[d] as that legislative enactment." Brief for Respondent in No. 11-3231 (CA Fed.), pp. 46-47. Then, at oral argument, a judge asked the Government's attorney the following question: "I thought I understood your brief to concede that [the word "law"] can't be a rule or regulation, it means statute. Am I wrong?" The Government's attorney responded: "You're not wrong your honor. I'll be as clear as I can. 'Specifically prohibited by law' here means statute." Oral Arg. Audio in No. 11-3231, at 22:42-23:03; see also id.,at 29:57-30:03 ("Now, as we've been discussing here, we're not saying here that [the word "law"] needs to encompass regulations. We're saying statute."). Those concessions reinforce our conclusion that the Government's proposed interpretations are unpersuasive.
In sum, when Congress used the phrase "specifically prohibited by law" instead of "specifically prohibited by law, rule, or regulation," it meant to exclude rules and regulations. We therefore hold that the TSA's regulations do not qualify as "law" for purposes of Section 2302(b)(8)(A).
B
We next consider whether MacLean's disclosure regarding the canceled missions was "specifically prohibited" by 49 U.S.C. § 114(r)(1)itself. As relevant here, that statute provides that the TSA "shall prescribe regulations prohibiting the disclosure of information obtained or developed in carrying out security... if the Under Secretary decides that disclosing the information would... be detrimental to the security of transportation." § 114(r)(1)(C).
This statute does not prohibit anything. On the contrary, it authorizessomething-it authorizes the Under Secretary to "prescribe regulations." Thus, by its terms Section 114(r)(1)did not prohibit the disclosure at issue here.
The Government responds that Section 114(r)(1)did prohibit MacLean's disclosure by imposing a "legislative mandate" on the TSA to promulgate regulations to that effect. See Brief for Petitioner 28, 33; see also post,at 2-3 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting).
But the Government pushes the statute too far. Section 114(r)(1)says that the TSA shall prohibit disclosures only "if the Under Secretary decidesthat disclosing the information would... be detrimental to the security of transportation." § 114(r)(1)(C)(emphasis added). That language affords substantial discretion to the TSA in deciding whether to prohibit any particular disclosure.
The dissent tries to downplay the scope of that discretion, viewing it as the almost ministerial task of "identifyingwhether a particular piece of information falls within the scope of Congress' command." Post,at 3. But determining which documents meet the statutory standard of "detrimental to the security of transportation" requires the exercise of considerable judgment. For example, the Government says that Section 114(r)(1)requires the Under Secretary to prohibit disclosures like MacLean's. The Government also says, however, that the statute does not require the Under Secretary to prohibit an employee from disclosing that "federal air marshals will be absent from important flights, but declining to specify which flights." Reply Brief 23. That fine-grained distinction comes not from Section 114(r)(1)itself, but from the Under Secretary's exercise of discretion. It is the TSA's regulations-not the statute-that prohibited MacLean's disclosure. And as the dissent agrees, a regulation does not count as "law" under the whistleblower statute. See post,at 1.
The Government insists, however, that this grant of discretion does not make Section 114(r)(1)any less of a prohibition. In support, the Government relies on Administrator, FAA v. Robertson,422 U.S. 255, 95 S.Ct. 2140, 45 L.Ed.2d 164 (1975). That case involved the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which requires federal agencies to disclose information upon request unless, among other things, the information is "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). In Robertson,we held that the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was one such statute, because it gave the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) "a broad degree of discretion" in deciding whether to disclose or withhold information. 422 U.S., at 266, 95 S.Ct. 2140.
The Government tries to analogize that case to this one. In Robertson,the Government says, the FAA's discretion whether to disclose information did not preclude a finding that the information was "specifically exempted" from disclosure by statute. So too here, the Government says, the TSA's discretion whether to prohibit disclosure of information does not preclude a finding that the information is "specifically prohibited" from disclosure by Section 114(r)(1). See Brief for Petitioner 30.
This analogy fails. FOIA and Section 2302(b)(8)(A)differ in an important way: The provision of FOIA at issue involves information that is "exempted" from disclosure, while Section 2302(b)(8)(A)involves information that is "prohibited" from disclosure.
A statute that exempts information from mandatory disclosure may nonetheless give the agency discretion to release that exempt information to the public. In such a case, the agency's exercise of discretion has no effect on whether the information is "exempted from disclosure by statute"-it remains exempt whatever the agency chooses to do.
The situation is different when it comes to a statute giving an agency discretion to prohibit the disclosure of information. The information is not prohibited from disclosure by statuteregardless of what the agency does. It is the agency's exercise of discretion that determines whether there is a prohibition at all. Thus, when Section 114(r)(1)gave the TSA the discretion to prohibit the disclosure of information, the statute did not create a prohibition-it gave the TSA the power to create one. And because Section 114(r)(1)did not create a prohibition, MacLean's disclosure was not "prohibited by law" under Section 2302(b)(8)(A), but only by a regulation issued in the TSA's discretion.
In any event, Robertsonwas a case about FOIA, not Section 2302, and our analysis there depended on two FOIA-specific factors that are not present here. First, we examined the legislative history of FOIA and determined that Congress did not intend that statute to affect laws like the Federal Aviation Act. 422 U.S., at 263-265, 95 S.Ct. 2140. In particular, we noted that the Civil Aeronautics Board had expressed its view during congressional hearings that the Federal Aviation Act qualified as an exempting statute under FOIA, and that "no question was raised or challenge made" to the agency's view. Id.,at 264-265, 95 S.Ct. 2140. But that legislative history can have no effect on our analysis of Section 2302(b)(8)(A).
Second, we said that the Federal Aviation Act could fail to qualify as an exempting statute only if we read FOIA "as repealing by implication all existing statutes which restrict public access to specific Government records." Id.,at 265, 95 S.Ct. 2140(internal quotation marks omitted). Then, relying on the presumption that "repeals by implication are disfavored," we rejected that interpretation of FOIA. But the presumption against implied repeals has no relevance here. Saying that Section 114(r)(1)is not a prohibition under the whistleblower statute is not the same as saying that the whistleblower statute implicitly repealed Section 114(r)(1). On the contrary, Section 114(r)(1)remains in force by allowing the TSA to deny FOIA requests and prohibit employee disclosures that do not qualify for whistleblower protection under Section 2302(b)(8)(A).
Ultimately, FOIA and Section 2302(b)(8)(A)are different statutes-they have different language, different histories, and were enacted in different contexts. Our interpretation of one, therefore, has no impact whatsoever on our interpretation of the other.
III
Finally, the Government warns that providing whistleblower protection to individuals like MacLean would "gravely endanger public safety." Brief for Petitioner 38. That protection, the Government argues, would make the confidentiality of sensitive security information depend on the idiosyncratic judgment of each of the TSA's 60,000 employees. Id.,at 37. And those employees will "most likely lack access to all of the information that led the TSA to make particular security decisions." Id.,at 38. Thus, the Government says, we should conclude that Congress did not intend for Section 2302(b)(8)(A)to cover disclosures like MacLean's.
Those concerns are legitimate. But they are concerns that must be addressed by Congress or the President, rather than by this Court. Congress could, for example, amend Section 114(r)(1)so that the TSA's prohibitions on disclosure override the whistleblower protections in Section 2302(b)(8)(A)-just as those prohibitions currently override FOIA. See § 114(r)(1)(authorizing the TSA to prohibit disclosures "[n]otwithstanding section 552 of title 5"); see also 10 U.S.C. § 2640(h)("the Secretary of Defense may (notwithstanding any other provision of law) withhold from public disclosure safety-related information that is provided to the Secretary voluntarily by an air carrier for the purposes of this section"). Congress could also exempt the TSA from the requirements of Section 2302(b)(8)(A)entirely, as Congress has already done for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Reconnaissance Office. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii)(I).
Likewise, the President could prohibit the disclosure of sensitive security information by Executive order. Indeed, the Government suggested at oral argument that the President could "entirely duplicate" the regulations that the TSA has issued under Section 114(r)(1). Tr. of Oral Arg. 16-20. Such an action would undoubtedly create an exception to the whistleblower protections found in Section 2302(b)(8)(A).
Although Congress and the President each has the power to address the Government's concerns, neither has done so. It is not our role to do so for them.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is
Affirmed.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice KENNEDYjoins, dissenting.
I agree with much of the Court's opinion. I have no qualms with the Court's conclusion that the phrase "specifically prohibited by law," as used in the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989(WPA), 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A), does not encompass disclosures prohibited only by regulation. See ante,at 919. Nor do I see any problem in the distinction the Court draws between statutes that prohibitinformation from being disclosed, the violation of which may preclude application of the WPA, and statutes that simply exemptinformation from otherwise-applicable disclosure requirements, which do not trigger the WPA's "prohibited by law" exception. See ante,at 922 - 923.
I part ways with the Court, however, when it concludes that 49 U.S.C. § 114(r)(1)does not itself prohibit the type of disclosure at issue here-the release of information regarding the absence of federal air marshals on overnight flights. Ante,at 921 - 922. That statute provides, in relevant part, that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) "shallprescribe regulations prohibiting the disclosure of information obtained or developed in carrying out security... if the Under Secretary decides that disclosing the information would... be detrimental to the security of transportation." § 114(r)(1)(emphasis added).
The Court reasons, first, that Section 114(r)(1)does not "prohibit anything," but instead simply "authorizes" the TSA to prescribe regulations. Ante,at 921 - 922. But this contention overlooks the statute's use of the word "shall," which, as we have observed, "generally means'must.' " Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno,515 U.S. 417, 432, n. 9, 115 S.Ct. 2227, 132 L.Ed.2d 375 (1995); see also, e.g.,Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki,552 U.S. 389, 400, 128 S.Ct. 1147, 170 L.Ed.2d 10 (2008)("Congress' use of the term'shall' indicates an intent to 'impose discretionless obligations' ") (some internal quotation marks omitted); A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 114 (2012) ("[W]hen the word shallcan reasonably read as mandatory, it ought to be so read"). Section 114(r)(1)does not merely authorizethe TSA to promulgate regulations; it directs it to do so, and describes what those regulations must accomplish.
The Court focuses, second, on the fact that Section 114(r)authorizes the TSA to " 'decid[e]' " whether the disclosure of a particular item of information would in fact be " 'detrimental to the security of transportation.' " Ante,at 921 (emphasis deleted). I certainly agree that this language vests some discretion in the agency.But the agency is required to prevent the disclosure of any information it determines is within Congress' prohibition; its discretion pertains only to identifyingwhether a particular piece of information falls within the scope of Congress' command. In concluding that such residual agency discretion deprives Section 114(r)of prohibitory effect, the Court overlooks the degree of agency involvement that is necessary in the administration of many antidisclosure statutes. Congress cannot be expected to identify with particularity each individual document or datum the release of which it wants to preclude. Often, it will have to leave to an agency or other enforcing authority the tasks of defining-perhaps through regulations-exactly what type of information falls within the scope of the congressional prohibition, and of determining whether a particular item of information fits the bill. The enforcing authority may, as the Court puts it, sometimes be required to make some "fine-grained distinction[s]" in fulfilling this charge, ante,at 922, but that does not change the fact that Congress itself is the source of the prohibition on disclosure.
Indeed, Congress appears to have anticipated the need for agency involvement in the interpretation and enforcement of antidisclosure statutes at the time it enacted the WPA. The Senate Report to the WPA identified only two statutes the violation of which would preclude whistleblower protection, the first being Section 102(d)(3) of the National Security Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 498, which provided that "the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure." See S.Rep. No. 95-969, pp. 21-22(1978), 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2723. This example clearly suggests Congress contemplated that a statute directing an agency to protect against disclosures and delegating substantial authority to the agency should nevertheless be deemed to impose the relevant prohibition. Section 114(r)(1)'s delegation to the TSA to "decide" whether the release of particular information would be "detrimental to the security of transportation" likewise simply reflects Congress' recognition of the inevitable fact that the agency will be tasked, in the first instance, with enforcing its statutory mandate.
In sum, with Section 114(r)(1), Congress has required agency action that would preclude the release of information "detrimental to the security of transportation." In so doing, Congress has expressed its clear intent to prohibit such disclosures. I would respect its intent, and hold that a disclosure contravening that mandate is "prohibited by law" within the meaning of the WPA.
Having said all that, I appreciate the narrowness of the Court's holding. The Court's conclusion that Section 114(r)does not itself prohibit any disclosures depends entirely on the statutory language directing the agency to "prescribe regulations," and providing that the agency will "decid[e]" what information falls within the statute's purview. See ante,at 921 - 922. From all that appears in the majority opinion, then, this case would likely have turned out differently if Section 114(r)instead provided: "The disclosure of information detrimental to the security of transportation is prohibited, and the TSA shall promulgate regulations to that effect," or "The Under Secretary shall prescribe regulations prohibiting the disclosure of information detrimental to the security of transportation; and such disclosures are prohibited." I myself decline to surrender so fully to sheer formalism, especially where transportation security is at issue and there is little dispute that the disclosure of air marshals' locations is potentially dangerous and was proscribed by the relevant implementing regulation. In so surrendering, however, the Court would appear to have enabled future courts and Congresses to avoid easily the consequences of its ruling, and thus to have limited much of the potential for adverse practical effects beyond this case. But in the interim, at least, the Court has left important decisions regarding the disclosure of critical information completely to the whims of individual employees.
I respectfully dissent.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Thomas M. Egan lost his laborer’s job at the Trident Naval Refit Facility in Bremerton, Wash., when he was denied a required security clearance. The narrow question presented by this case is whether the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) has authority by statute to review the substance of an underlying decision to deny or revoke a security clearance in the course of reviewing an adverse action. The Board ruled that it had no such authority. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, by a divided vote, reversed. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the issue in its relation to national security concerns. 481 U. S. 1068 (1987).
I
Respondent Egan was a new hire and began his work at the facility on November 29,1981. He served as a veteran’s-preference-eligible civilian employee of the Navy subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Act), 5 U. S. C. § 1201 et seq.
The mission of the Refit Facility is to provide quick-turnaround repair, replenishment, and systems check-out of the Trident submarine over its extended operating cycle. The Trident is nuclear-powered and carries nuclear weapons. It has been described as the most sophisticated and sensitive weapon in the Navy’s arsenal and as playing a crucial part in our Nation’s defense system. See Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, 400 F. Supp. 454, 462-466 (DC 1975), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 180 U. S. App. D. C. 345, 555 F. 2d 817 (1977). As a consequence, all employee positions at the Refit Facility are classified as sensitive. Thus, as shown on his Standard Form, a condition precedent to Egan’s retention of his employment was “satisfactory completion of security and medical reports.”
In April 1982, respondent gained the “noncritical-sensitive” position of laborer leader. Pending the outcome of his security investigation, however, he performed only limited duties and was not permitted to board any submarine.
On February 16, 1983, the Director of the Naval Civilian Personnel Command issued a letter of intent to deny respondent a security clearance. This was based upon California and Washington state criminal records reflecting respondent’s convictions for assault and for being a felon in possession of a gun, and further based upon his failure to disclose on his application for federal employment two earlier convictions for carrying a loaded firearm. The Navy also referred to respondent’s own statements that he had had drinking problems in the past and had served the final 28 days of a sentence in an alcohol rehabilitation program.
Respondent was informed that he had a right to respond to the proposed security-clearance denial. On May 6, he answered the Navy’s letter of intent, asserting that he had paid his debt to society for his convictions, that he had not listed convictions older than seven years because he did not interpret the employment form as requiring that information, and that alcohol had not been a problem for him for three years preceding the clearance determination. He also provided favorable material from supervisors as to his background and character.
The Director, after reviewing this response, concluded that the information provided did not sufficiently explain, mitigate, or refute the reasons on which the proposed denial was based. Accordingly, respondent’s security clearance was denied.
Respondent took an appeal to the Personnel Security Appeals Board, but his removal was effected before that Board acted (which it eventually did by affirming the denial of clearance).
Without a security clearance, respondent was not eligible for the job for which he had been hired. Reassignment to a nonsensitive position at the facility was not possible because there was no nonsensitive position there. Accordingly, the Navy issued a notice of proposed removal, and respondent was placed on administrative leave pending final decision. Respondent did not reply to the notice. On July 15,1983, he was informed that his removal was effective July 22.
Respondent, pursuant to 5 U. S. C. § 7513(d), sought review by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Under § 7513(a), an agency may remove an employee “only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.” The statute, together with § 7701 to which § 7513(d) specifically refers, provides the employee with a number of procedural protections, including notice, an opportunity to respond and be represented by counsel, and a decision in writing. The employee, unless he is a nonveteran in the excepted service, may appeal the agency’s decision to the Board, as respondent did, which is to sustain the action if it is “supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” § 7701(c)(1)(B). The stated “cause” for respondent’s removal was his failure to meet the requirements for his position due to the denial of security clearance. Before the Board, the Government argued that the Board’s review power was limited to determining whether the required removal procedures had been followed and whether a security clearance was a condition for respondent’s position. It contended that the Board did not have the authority to judge the merits of the underlying security-clearance determination.
The Board’s presiding official reversed the agency’s decision, ruling that the Board did have authority to review the merits. She further ruled that the agency must specify the precise criteria used in its security-clearance decision and must show that those criteria are rationally related to national security. App. to Pet. for Cert. 62a-63a. The agency then must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employee’s acts precipitating the denial of his clearance actually occurred, and that his “alleged misconduct has an actual or potentially detrimental effect on national security interests.” Id., at 63a. The official then held that the ultimate burden was upon the agency to persuade the Board of the appropriateness of its decision to deny clearance. Id., at 64a.
The official concluded that it was not possible to determine whether the Navy’s denial of respondent’s security clearance was justified because it had not submitted a list of the criteria it employed and because it did not present evidence that it had “conscientiously weighed the circumstances surrounding [respondent’s] alleged misconduct and reasonably balanced it against the interests of national security.” Id., at 65a. She accordingly concluded that the Navy had “failed to show it reached a reasonable and warranted decision concerning the propriety of the revocation of [respondent’s] security clearance.” Id., at 66a. The decision to remove respondent, therefore, could not stand.
The Navy petitioned for full Board review of the presiding official’s ruling. In a unanimous decision, the Board reversed the presiding official’s ruling and sustained the agency’s removal action. 28 M. S. P. R. 509 (1985). It observed that §§7512 and 7513 “do not specifically address the extent of the Board’s review of the underlying determinations.” 28 M. S. P. R., at 514. Neither did the legislative history of the Act “address the extent of the authority Congress intended the Board to exercise in reviewing revocations or denials of security clearances which result in Chapter 75 actions.” Id., at 515. The Board found no binding legal precedent. It acknowledged the presence of the decision in Hoska v. Department of Army, 219 U. S. App. D. C. 280, 677 F. 2d 131 (1982) (security clearance revocation leading to dismissal reviewed on its merits), but explained that case away on the ground that the court did not “expressly address the Board’s authority to review the underlying reasons for the agency’s security clearance determination.” 28 M. S. P. R., at 516. Thus, earlier Board cases that had relied upon Hoska, see, e. g., Bogdanowicz v. Department of Army, 16 M. S. P. R. 653 (1983), involved a “reliance misplaced,” and the holding that they stood “for the proposition that the Board has the authority to review the propriety of the agency’s . . . denial of a security clearance” was “now overrule[d].” 28 M. S. P. R., at 516. It went on to say that “section 7532 is not the exclusive basis for removals based upon security clearance revocations.” Id., at 521.
Respondent, pursuant to § 7703, appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. By a divided vote, that court reversed the Board’s decision that it had no authority to review the merits of a security-clearance determination underlying a removal. 802 F. 2d 1563 (1986). It agreed with the Board that § 7532 is not the sole authority for a removal based upon national security concerns. 802 F. 2d, at 1568. It noted, however, that the agency had chosen to remove respondent under §7512 rather than §7532 and thus that it chose the procedure “that carrie[d] Board review under section 7513,” 802 F. 2d, at 1569, including review of the merits of the underlying agency determination to deny a security clearance. The court then remanded the case to the Board for such review, stating that the question of an appropriate remedy, should the Board now rule that a security clearance was improperly denied, was not yet ripe. Id., at 1573-1575.
The dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals concluded that respondent had received all the procedural protections to which he was entitled, id., at 1577-1578; that the majority in effect was transferring a discretionary decision vested in an executive agency to a body that had neither the responsibility nor the expertise to make that decision; that the ruling raised separation-of-powers concerns; and that the Board would be unable to provide an appropriate remedy. Id., at 1578, 1580-1583.
II
We turn first to the statutory structure. Chapter 75 of Title 5 of the United States Code is entitled “Adverse Actions.” Its subchapter II (§§ 7511-7514) relates to removals for “cause.” Subchapter IV (§§ 7531-7533) relates to removals based upon national security concerns. An employee removed for “cause” has the right, under § 7513(d), to appeal to the Board. In contrast, an employee suspended under § 7532(a) is not entitled to appeal to the Board. That employee, however, is entitled to specified preremoval procedural rights, including a hearing by an agency authority. § 7532(c)(3).
Chapter 77 of Title 5 (§§7701-7703) is entitled “Appeals,” and Chapter 12 (§§ 1201-1209) relates to the “Merit Systems Protection Board and Special Counsel.” Section 1205(a) provides that the Board shall “hear, adjudicate, or provide for the hearing or adjudication of all matters within the jurisdiction of the Board” and shall “order any Federal agency or employee to comply with any order or decision issued by the Board.” In the present litigation, there is no claim that the Board did not have jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate respondent’s appeal.
It is apparent that the statutes provide a “two-track” system. A removal for “cause” embraces a right of appeal to the Board and a hearing of the type prescribed in detail in § 7701. Suspension and removal under § 7532, however, entail no such right of appeal. Respondent takes the straightforward position that, inasmuch as this case proceeded under § 7513, a hearing before the Board was required. The Government agrees. What is disputed is the subject matter of that hearing and the extent to which the Board may exercise reviewing authority. In particular, may the Board, when §7513 is pursued, examine the merits of the security-clearance denial, or does its authority stop short of that point, that is, upon review of the fact of denial, of the position’s requirement of security clearance, and of the satisfactory provision of the requisite procedural protections?
Ill
The Court of Appeals’ majority stated: “The absence of any statutory provision precluding appellate review of security clearance denials in section 7512 removals creates a strong presumption in favor of appellate review,” citing Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 141 (1967). 802 F. 2d, at 1569. One perhaps may accept this as a general proposition of administrative law, but the proposition is not without limit, and it runs aground when it encounters concerns of national security, as in this case, where the grant of security clearance to a particular employee, a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment call, is committed by law to the appropriate agency of the Executive Branch.
The President, after all, is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 890 (1961). This Court has recognized the Government’s “compelling interest” in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. Snepp v. United States, 444 U. S. 507, 509, n. 3 (1980). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 267 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 10 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105, 106 (1876). The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief.
Since World War I, the Executive Branch has engaged in efforts to protect national security information by means of a classification system graded according to sensitivity. See Note, Developments in the Law — The National Security Interest and Civil Liberties, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1130, 1193-1194 (1972). After World War II, certain civilian agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Atomic Energy Commission, were entrusted with gathering, protecting, or creating information bearing on national security. Presidents, in a series of Executive Orders, have sought to protect sensitive information and to ensure its proper classification throughout the Executive Branch by delegating this responsibility to the heads of agencies. See Exec. Order No. 10290, 3 CFR 789 (1949-1953 Comp.); Exec. Order No. 10501, 3 CFR 979 (1949-1953 Comp.); Exec. Order No. 11652, 3 CFR 678 (1971-1975 Comp.); Exec. Order No. 12065, 3 CFR 190 (1979); Exec. Order No. 12356, §4.1(a), 3 CFR 174 (1983). Pursuant to these directives, departments and agencies of the Government classify jobs in three categories: critical sensitive, noncritical sensitive, and nonsensitive. Different types and levels of clearance are required, depending upon the position sought. A Government appointment is expressly made subject to a background investigation that varies according to the degree of adverse effect the applicant could have on the national security. See Exec. Order No. 10450, §3, 3 CFR 937 (1949-1953 Comp.).
It should be obvious that no one has a “right” to a security clearance. The grant of a clearance requires an affirmative act of discretion on the part of the granting official. The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when “clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.” See, e. g., Exec. Order No. 10450, §§2 and 7, 3 CFR 936, 938 (1949-1953 Comp.); 10 CFR §710.10(a) (1987) (Department of Energy); 32 CFR § 156.3(a) (1987) (Department of Defense). A clearance does not equate with passing judgment upon an individual’s character. Instead, it is only an attempt to predict his possible future behavior and to assess whether, under compulsion of circumstances or for other reasons, he might compromise sensitive information. It may be based, to be sure, upon past or present conduct, but it also may be based upon concerns completely unrelated to conduct, such as having close relatives residing in a country hostile to the United States. “[T]o be denied [clearance] on unspecified grounds in no way implies disloyalty or any other repugnant characteristic.” Molerio v. FBI, 242 U. S. App. D. C. 137, 146, 749 F. 2d 815, 824 (1984). The attempt to define not only the individual’s future actions, but those of outside and unknown influences renders the “grant or denial of security clearances ... an inexact science at best.” Adams v. Laird, 136 U. S. App. D. C. 388, 397, 420 F. 2d 230, 239 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 1039 (1970).
Predictive judgment of this kind must be made by those with the necessary expertise in protecting classified information. For “reasons . . . too obvious to call for enlarged discussion,” CIA v. Sims, 471 U. S. 159, 170 (1985), the protection of classified information must be committed to the broad discretion of the agency responsible, and this must include broad discretion to determine who may have access to it. Certainly, it is not reasonably possible for an outside non-expert body to review the substance of such a judgment and to decide whether the agency should have been able to make the necessary affirmative prediction with confidence. Nor can such a body determine what constitutes an acceptable margin of error in assessing the potential risk. The Court accordingly has acknowledged that with respect to employees in sensitive positions “there is a reasonable basis for the view that an agency head who must bear the responsibility for the protection of classified information committed to his custody should have the final say in deciding whether to repose his trust in an employee who has access to such information.” Cole v. Young, 351 U. S. 536, 546 (1956). As noted above, this must be a judgment call. The Court also has recognized “the generally accepted view that foreign policy was the province and responsibility of the Executive.” Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 293-294 (1981). “As to these areas of Art. II duties the courts have traditionally shown the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 710 (1974). Thus, unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs. See, e. g., Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83, 93-94 (1953); Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137, 142, 144 (1953); Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U. S. 1, 10 (1973), Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 757-758 (1975); Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296 (1983).
We feel that the contrary conclusion of the Court of Appeals’ majority is not in line with this authority.
IV
Finally, we are fortified in our conclusion when we consider generally the statute’s “express language” along with “the structure of the statutory scheme, its objectives, its legislative history, and the nature of the administrative action involved.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 345 (1984).
The Act by its terms does not confer broad authority on the Board to review a security-clearance determination. As noted above, the Board does have jurisdiction to review “adverse actions,” a term, however, limited to a removal, a suspension for more than 14 days, a reduction in grade or pay, and a furlough of 30 days or less. §§ 7513(d), 7512. A denial of a security clearance is not such an “adverse action,” and by its own force is not subject to Board review. An employee who is removed for “cause” under § 7513, when his required clearance is denied, is entitled to the several procedural protections specified in that statute. The Board then may determine whether such cause existed, whether in fact clearance was denied, and whether transfer to a nonsensitive position was feasible. Nothing in the Act, however, directs or empowers the Board to go further. Cf. Zimmer man v. Department of Army, 755 F. 2d 156 (CA Fed. 1985); Buriani v. Department of Air Force, 777 F. 2d 674, 677 (CA Fed. 1985); Bacon v. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 757 F. 2d 265, 269-270 (CA Fed. 1985); Madsen v. VA, 754 F. 2d 343 (CA Fed. 1985).
As noted above, security clearance normally will be granted only if it is “clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.” The Board, however, reviews adverse actions under a preponderance of the evidence standard. § 7701(c)(1)(B). These two standards seem inconsistent. It is difficult to see how the Board would be able to review security-clearance determinations under a preponderance of the evidence standard without departing from the “clearly consistent with the interests of the national security” test. The clearly consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials. Placing the burden on the Government to support the denial by a preponderance of the evidence would inevitably shift this emphasis and involve the Board in second-guessing the agency’s national security determinations. We consider it extremely unlikely that Congress intended such a result when it passed the Act and created the Board.
Respondent presses upon us the existence of § 7532 with its provision for an employee’s summary removal. The Court of Appeals’ majority concluded that § 7532 was not the exclusive means for removal on national security grounds. 802 F. 2d, at 1568. The parties to the present litigation are in no dispute about the alternative availability of §7513 or §7532. They assume, as the Federal Circuit held, that §7532 does not pre-empt §7513 and that the two statutes stand separately and provide alternative routes for administrative action. There is no reason for us to dispute that conclusion here for, in this respect, we accept the case as it comes to us.
Respondent points out the Government’s acknowledgment that the remedy under §7532 is “drastic” in that the employee may be suspended summarily and thereafter removed after such investigation and review as the agency head considers necessary; in that neither the suspension nor the removal is subject to outside review; in that the employee is not eligible for any other position in the agency and may not be appointed to a position elsewhere in the Government without consultation with the Office of Personnel Management; and in that the section requires the head of the agency to act personally. At the same time, respondent would say, as did the Court of Appeals, 802 F. 2d, at 1572, that the Board’s decision in the present case suggests an anomaly in that an employee removed under § 7513 is entitled to less process than one removed under § 7532. The argument is that the availability of the §7532 procedure is a “compelling” factor in favor of Board review of a security-clearance denial in a case under § 7513. We are not persuaded.
We do not agree that respondent would have received greater procedural protections under § 7532 than he received in the present case. Respondent received notice of the reasons for the proposed denial, an opportunity to inspect all relevant evidence, a right to respond, a written decision, and an opportunity to appeal to the Personnel Security Appeals Board. Until the time of his removal, he remained on full-pay status. His removal was subject to Board review that provided important protections outlined above. In contrast, had he been removed under § 7532, he would have received notice to “the extent that the head of the agency determines that the interests of national security permit,” a hearing before an agency board, and a decision by the head of the agency. He could have been suspended without pay pending the outcome. He would not have been entitled to any review outside the agency, and, once removed, he would have been barred from employment with the agency. In short, § 7532, instead, provides a procedure that is harsh and drastic both for the employee and for the agency head, who must act personally in suspending and removing the employee. See §§ 7532(a) and (b).
Respondent’s argument that the Board’s decision in this case creates an anomaly seems to come down to his contention that, had he been removed under § 7532, he would have been entitled to a trial-type hearing prior to his removal. Even assuming he would be entitled to such a hearing under § 7532, however, we would still consider the two procedures not anomalous, but merely different. As explained above, we doubt whether removal under § 7532, even as envisioned by respondent, would have amounted to “more” procedural protection.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
A “noncritical-sensitive” position is defined to include “[a]ccess to Secret or Confidential information.” Chief of Naval Operations Instructions (OPNAVINST) 5510. IF, K16-101-2.b (June 15, 1981). OPNAVINST 5510. IF was amended in April 1984 and is now OPNAVINST 5510.1G.
This date is of some significance for by then respondent had been employed at the facility for more than a year. Title 5 U. S. C. § 7511(a)(1)(A) defines an “employee” as “an individual in the competitive service who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment or who has completed 1 year of current continuous employment under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less.” There is no dispute concerning respondent’s status as an employee within the meaning of § 7511(a)(1)(A).
Section 7513(d) reads: “An employee against whom an action is taken under this section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board under section 7701 of this title.”
We note at this point the presence of 5 U. S. C. §7532. Under § 7532(a), the “head of an agency,” “[n]otwithstanding other statutes,” may suspend an employee “when he considers that action necessary in the interests of national security.” After complying with specified procedures, the agency head may remove the suspended employee when “he determines that removal is necessary or advisable in the interests of national security.” His determination then is “final.” § 7532(b). Removal under § 7532 is not subject to Board review. § 7512(A). In respondent’s case the Navy did not invoke § 7532; his removal, therefore, presumably would be subject to Board review as provided in § 7513.
The Solicitor General informs us, see Brief for Petitioner 6, that the Board had before it numerous petitions for review raising similar issues of law, and treated the present litigation as the lead case. The Board had invited and received briefs from interested agencies, employee organizations, and others concerning the proper scope of its review and whether § 7532, see n. 4, supra, is the exclusive authority for a removal based upon national security concerns. See 49 Fed. Reg. 48623-48624 (1984); 50 Fed. Reg. 2355 (1985).
Prior to the Act’s passage in 1978, most federal employees dismissed for cause could pursue an appeal to the Civil Service Commission. The parties here appear to agree that the old Commission never exercised jurisdiction over a security-clearance determination. We fail to see any indication that Congress intended to grant the Board greater jurisdiction in this respect than that possessed by the Civil Service Commission. The Board was created to assume the adjudicatory functions of the old Commission and, with certain exceptions, those functions passed unchanged from the Commission to the Board. When the Senate and House Committees listed the changes effected by the Act, they gave no indication that an agency’s security-clearance determination was now to be subject to review. See S. Rep. No. 95-969, pp. 46 and 52 (1978); H. R. Rep. No. 95-1403, pp. 21,22 (1978). Such changes as were made did not bear upon the issue. If there be any contrary implication in the legislative history, as respondent would suggest, it is much too frail for us to conclude that Congress intended a major change of that kind.
But cf. Doe v. Weinberger, 261 U. S. App. D. C. 96, 101, 820 F. 2d 1275, 1280 (1987), cert. pending sub nom. Carlucci v. Doe, No. 87-751. If the District of Columbia Circuit’s holding in Doe (to the effect that § 7532 is not merely “an extra option,” 261 U. S. App. D. C., at 101, 820 P. 2d, at 1280, for the removal of an employee of the National Security Agency, to which 50 U. S. C. §§ 831 and 832 apply) is pertinent with respect to the Navy’s power to dismiss an employee for cause under § 7513, that ruling would conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in the present case that the Navy may proceed under § 7513. This Court will meet the issue in Doe when it comes to it. We decide the present case on the parties’ assumption that § 7513 was available to the Navy in this case and that it proceeded thereunder.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 threshold question in these cases is whether this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 on direct appeals from the decisions of the respective District Courts purportedly convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281. The answer to that question in turn depends upon whether the three-judge courts in these cases were properly convened.
In No. 624, appellants attack the validity of an Alabama statute (Ala. Laws 1957, Act No. 9, p. 30) prescribing the apportionment and districting scheme for electing members of the Houston County Board of Revenue and Control. Under the statute, the Board consists of five members, each elected by the qualified electors of the district of which he is a resident. The challenged statute prescribes the areas constituting the various districts. The action is brought against the appellees, including some state officials, seeking a declaration that the statute is invalid and an injunction prohibiting its enforcement, and requesting that the court order at-large elections until the State Legislature redistricts and reapportions the Board on a population basis. The theory is that the apportionment and districting scheme results in the overrepresentation of certain areas and the under-representation of others. The complaint also requested the convening of a three-judge court. A three-judge court was convened and the complaint was dismissed. 256 F. Supp. 195. We noted probable jurisdiction, 385 U. S. 966.
In No. 491, appellees brought an action against appellants, members of the Suffolk County Board of Supervisors, seeking a declaration that so much of § 203 of the Suffolk County Charter (N. Y. Laws 1958, c. 278) as provides that each supervisor shall have one vote as a member of the Suffolk County Board of Supervisors violates the Fourteenth Amendment and an injunction prohibiting the appellants from acting as a Board of Supervisors unless and until a change in their voting strength is made, and requesting the convening of a three-judge court. The 10 towns of Suffolk County, New York, elect, by popular vote, a supervisor every two years. The supervisor is the town’s representative on the Suffolk County Board of Supervisors. Suffolk County Charter § 201. And, each supervisor is entitled to one vote on the County Board of Supervisors. Suffolk County Charter § 203. Pursuant to Art. 9, §§ 1 and 2, of the New York Constitution, the State Legislature approved a charter for the county containing, inter alia, the above provisions. N. Y. Laws 1958, c. 278.
Appellees claim that granting each supervisor one vote regardless of the population of the town which elected him results in an overrepresentation of the towns with small populations and underrepresentation of towns with large populations.
A three-judge court was convened and it declared § 203 of the Suffolk County Charter invalid because in conflict with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and ordered the Board to submit to the county electorate a plan for reconstruction of the Board so as to insure voter equality. 256 F. Supp. 617. We noted probable jurisdiction. 385 U. S. 966.
This Court has jurisdiction of these direct appeals under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 only if the respective actions were “required ... to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.” Section 2281 of 28 U. S. C. requires that a three-judge court be convened in any case in which a preliminary or permanent injunction is sought to restrain “the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute . . . .” The purpose of § 2281 is “to prevent a single federal judge from being able to paralyze totally the operation of an entire regulatory scheme . . . by issuance of a broad injunctive order” (Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 154) and to provide “procedural protection against an improvident state-wide doom by a federal court of a state’s legislative policy.” Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 251. In order for § 2281 to come into play the plaintiffs must seek to enjoin state statutes “by whatever method they may be adopted, to which a State gives her sanction . . . .” American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582, 592-593.
The Court has consistently construed the section as authorizing a three-judge court not merely because a state statute is involved but only when a state statute of general and statewide application is sought to be enjoined. See, e. g., Ex parte Collins, 277 U. S. 565; Ex parte Public National Bank, 278 U. S. 101; Rorick v. Board of Commissioners, 307 U. S. 208; Cleveland v. United States, 323 U. S. 329, 332; Griffin v. School Board, 377 U. S. 218, 227-228. The term “statute” in § 2281 does not encompass local ordinances or resolutions. The officer sought to be enjoined must be a state officer; a three-judge court need not be convened where the action seeks to enjoin a local officer (Ex parte Collins, supra; Rorick v. Board of Commissioners, supra) unless he is functioning pursuant to a statewide policy and performing a state function. Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89. Nor does the section come into operation where an action is brought against state officers performing matters of purely local concern. Rorick v. Board of Commissioners, supra. And, the requirement that the action seek to enjoin a state officer cannot be circumvented “by joining, as nominal parties defendant, state officers whose action is not the effective means of the enforcement or execution of the challenged statute.” Wilentz v. Sovereign Camp, 306 U. S. 573, 579-580.
In No. 624, the constitutional attack was directed to a state statute dealing with matters of local concern— the apportionment and districting for one county’s governing board. The statute is not a statute of statewide application, but relates solely to the affairs of one county in the State. The fact that state officers were named as defendants cannot change the result.
It is said that, there is enough similarity between this law and the laws governing other Alabama counties as to give this case a statewide interest. It is said that 29 counties having a city of consequence located within their borders have the same “crazy quilt” of malappor-tionment to insure rural voters’ control. It is said that 32 other counties provide for election of county board members at large but with a local residence requirement which insures rural control. It is said that six rural counties elect their governing bodies on an at-large basis with no local residence requirement. We indicate no views on the merits. But we do suggest that even a variety of different devices, working perhaps to the same end, still leaves any one device local rather than statewide for purposes of the statutory three-judge court.
In No. 491, the constitutional attack is directed at provisions of a county charter providing that the county governing board shall be composed of the supervisors of the several towns and that each supervisor shall have one vote. The county charter is similar to a local ordinance, a challenge to which cannot support a three-judge court. The fact that the charter was enacted into state law does not change the result. The charter provisions plainly relate only to one county and the statute enacting the charter is similarly limited. It does not remotely resemble a state statute of general, statewide application. It is a statute dealing solely with matters of local concern. Nor was the action brought against “state officers” within the meaning of the statute; it was brought to enjoin local officers acting solely with reference to local matters.
It is argued, however, that the alleged malapportionment reflected in the charter is also reflected in § 150 and § 153 of the New York County Law, which does have a statewide application, and that the provisions of the charter here challenged are actually interchangeable with § 150 and § 153 of the County Law. It is also argued that to get rid of this alleged malapportionment the Court would have to declare unconstitutional not only the provisions of the charter but also § 150 and §153 of the County Law. The complaint, however, challenges only the charter. It makes no challenge of any statewide law. And the three-judge court considered it as an attack only on the charter. 256 F. Supp. 617.
We therefore do not accept the invitation to get into the niceties of the relationship between the provisions of the charter and the New York County Law, but take the complaint as we find it for purposes of the jurisdictional question, and conclude on the face of the complaint that we have only an alleged malapportionment under a county charter.
Since the “statute” in each of these cases is one of limited application, concerning only a particular county involved in the litigation, a three-judge court was improperly convened. Appeals should, therefore, have been taken to the respective Courts of Appeals, not to this Court. Since the time for perfecting those appeals may have passedj we vacate the judgments and remand the causes to the court which heard each case so that they may enter a fresh decree from which appellants may, if they wish, perfect timely appeals to the respective Courts of Appeals. Phillips v. United States, supra, at 254.
Decrees vacated.
Section 150 of the N. Y. County Law (1950) provides that “[t]he supervisors of the several cities and towns in each county . . . shall constitute the board of supervisors of the county” and § 153 subd. 4 provides for a majority vote of the supervisors with respect to actions of the Board of Supervisors where “no proportion of the voting strength for such action is otherwise prescribed.” But § 2 of the N. Y. County Law provides that the provisions of the law shall not apply “in so far as they are in conflict with or in limitation of a provision of any alternative form of county government . . . adopted by a county pursuant to section two of article nine of the constitution, or any . . . county government law or civil divisions act enacted by the legislature and applicable to such county . . . , or in conflict with any local law . . . adopted by a county under an optional or alternative form of county government . . . unless a contrary intent is expressly stated in [the law].”
And see Bianchi v. Griffing, 238 F. Supp. 997, where the three-judge court in this ease denied the motion to dismiss and denied the motion for an injunction against the continued operation of the Board, pending legislative or other political action to correct the alleged malapportionment.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 petitioner was indicted for violating the federal narcotics laws. He retained a lawyer, pleaded not guilty, and was released on bail. While he was free on bail a federal agent succeeded by surreptitious means in listening to incriminating statements made by him. Evidence of these statements was introduced against the petitioner at his trial over his objection. He was convicted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari to consider whether, under the circumstances here presented, the prosecution’s use at the trial of evidence of the petitioner’s own incriminating statements deprived him of any right secured to him under the Federal Constitution. 374 U. S. 805.
The petitioner, a merchant seaman, was in 1958 a member of the crew of the S. S. Santa Maria. In April of that year federal customs officials in New York received information that he was going to transport a quantity of narcotics aboard that ship from South America to the United States. As a result of this and other information, the agents searched the Santa Maria upon its arrival in New York and found in the afterpeak of the vessel five packages containing about three and a half pounds of cocaine. They also learned of circumstances, not here relevant, tending to connect the petitioner with the cocaine. He was arrested, promptly arraigned, and subsequently indicted for possession of narcotics aboard a United States vessel. In July a superseding indictment was returned, charging the petitioner and a man named Colson with the same substantive offense, and in separate counts charging the petitioner, Colson, and others with having conspired to possess narcotics aboard a United States vessel, and to import, conceal, and facilitate the sale of narcotics. The petitioner, who had retained a lawyer, pleaded not guilty and was released on bail, along with Colson.
A few days later, and quite without the petitioner’s knowledge, Colson decided to cooperate with the government agents in their continuing investigation of the narcotics activities in which the petitioner, Colson, and others had allegedly been engaged. Colson permitted an agent named Murphy to install a Schmidt radio transmitter under the front seat of Colson’s automobile, by means of which Murphy, equipped with an appropriate receiving device, could overhear from some distance away conversations carried on in Colson’s car.
On the evening of November 19, 1959, Colson and the petitioner held a lengthy conversation while sitting in Colson’s automobile, parked on a New York street. By prearrangement with Colson, and totally unbeknown to the petitioner, the agent Murphy sat in a car parked out of sight down the street and listened over the radio to the entire conversation. The petitioner made several incriminating statements during the course of this conversation. At the petitioner’s trial these incriminating statements were brought before the jury through Murphy’s testimony, despite the insistent objection of defense counsel. The jury convicted the petitioner of several related narcotics offenses, and the convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The petitioner argues that it was an error of constitutional dimensions to permit the agent Murphy at the trial to testify to the petitioner’s incriminating statements which Murphy had overheard under the circumstances disclosed by this record. This argument is based upon two distinct and independent grounds. First, we are told that Murphy’s use of the radio equipment violated the petitioner’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, and, consequently, that all evidence which Murphy thereby obtained was, under the rule of Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, inadmissible against the petitioner at the trial. Secondly, it is said that the petitioner’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the use in evidence against him of incriminating statements which government agents had deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his retained counsel. Because of the way we dispose of the case, we do not reach the Fourth Amendment issue.
In Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315, this Court reversed a state criminal conviction because a confession had been wrongly admitted into evidence against the defendant at his trial. In that case the defendant had already been indicted for first-degree murder at the time he confessed. The Court held that the defendant’s conviction could not stand under the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Court’s opinion relied upon the totality of the circumstances under which the confession had been obtained, four concurring Justices pointed out that the Constitution required reversal of the conviction upon the sole and specific ground that the confession had been deliberately elicited by the police after the defendant had been indicted, and therefore at a time when he was clearly entitled to a lawyer’s help. It was pointed out that under our system of justice the most elemental concepts of due process of law contemplate that an indictment be followed by a trial, “in an orderly courtroom, presided over by a judge, open to the public, and protected by all the procedural safeguards of the law.” 360 U. S., at 327 (Stewart, J., concurring). It was said that a Constitution which guarantees a defendant the aid of counsel at such a trial could surely vouchsafe no less to an indicted defendant under interrogation by the police in a completely extrajudicial proceeding. Anything less, it was said, might deny a defendant “effective representation by counsel at the only stage when legal aid and advice would help him.” 360 U. S., at 326 (Douglas, J., concurring).
Ever since this Court’s decision in the Spano case, the New York courts have unequivocally followed this constitutional rule. “Any secret interrogation of the defendant, from and after the finding of the indictment, without the protection afforded by the presence' of counsel, contravenes the basic dictates of fairness in the conduct of criminal causes and the fundamental rights of persons charged with crime.” People v. Waterman, 9 N. Y. 2d 561, 565, 175 N. E. 2d 445, 448.
This view no more than reflects a constitutional principle established as long ago as Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, where the Court noted that “. . . during perhaps the most critical period of the proceedings . . . that is to say, from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial, when consultation, thoroughgoing investigation and preparation [are] vitally important, the defendants . . . [are] as much entitled to such aid [of counsel] during that period as at the trial itself.” Id., at 57. And since the Spano decision the same basic constitutional principle has been broadly reaffirmed by this Court. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52; White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335.
Here we deal not with a state court conviction, but with a federal case, where the specific guarantee of the Sixth Amendment directly applies. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458. We hold that the petitioner was denied the basic protections of that guarantee when there was used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents had deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel. It is true that in the Spano case the defendant was interrogated in a police station, while here the damaging testimony was elicited from the defendant without his knowledge while he was free on bail. But, as Judge Hays pointed out in his dissent in the Court of Appeals, “if such a rule is to have any efficacy it must apply to indirect and surreptitious interrogations as well as those conducted in the jailhouse. In this case, Massiah was more seriously imposed upon . . . because he did not even know that he was under interrogation by a government agent.” 307 F. 2d, at 72-73.
The Solicitor General, in his brief and oral argument, has strenuously contended that the federal law enforcement agents had the right, if not indeed the duty, to continue their investigation of the petitioner and his alleged criminal associates even though the petitioner had been indicted. He points out that the Government was continuing its investigation in order to uncover not only the source of narcotics found on the S. S. Santa Maria, but also their intended buyer. He says that the quantity of narcotics involved was such as to suggest that the petitioner was part of a large and well-organized ring, and indeed that the continuing investigation confirmed this suspicion, since it resulted in criminal charges against many defendants. Under these circumstances the Solicitor General concludes that the government agents were completely “justified in making use of Colson's cooperation by having Colson continue his normal associations and by surveilling them.”
We may accept and, at least for present purposes, completely approve all that this argument implies, Fourth Amendment problems to one side. We do not question that in this case, as in many cases, it was entirely proper to continue an investigation of the suspected criminal activities of the defendant and his alleged confederates, even though the defendant had already been indicted. All that we hold is that the defendant’s own incriminating statements, obtained by federal agents under the circumstances here disclosed, could not constitutionally be used by the prosecution as evidence against him at his trial.
Reversed.
307 F. 2d 62.
21 U. S. C. 184a.
21 U. S. C. 173, 174.
The petitioner’s trial was upon a second superseding indictment which had been returned on March 3, 1961, and which included additional counts against him and other defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction upon a conspiracy count, one judge dissenting, but affirmed his convictions upon three substantive counts, one judge dissenting. 307 F. 2d 62.
See also People v. Davis, 13 N. Y. 2d 690, 191 N. E. 2d 674, 241 N. Y. S. 2d 172 (1963); People v. Rodriguez, 11 N. Y. 2d 279, 183 N. E. 2d 651, 229 N. Y. S. 2d 353 (1962); People v. Meyer, 11 N. Y. 2d 162, 182 N. E. 2d 103, 227 N. Y. S. 2d 427 (1962); People v. Di Biasi, 7 N. Y. 2d 544, 166 N. E. 2d 825, 200 N. Y. S. 2d 21 (1960); People v. Swanson, 18 App. Div. 2d 832, 237 N. Y. S. 2d 400 (2d Dept. 1963); People v. Price, 18 App. Div. 2d 739, 235 N. Y. S. 2d 390 (3d Dept. 1962); People v. Wallace, 17 App. Div. 2d 981, 234 N. Y. S. 2d 579 (2d Dept. 1962); People v. Karmel, 17 App. Div. 2d 659, 230 N. Y. S. 2d 413 (2d Dept. 1962); People v. Robinson, 16 App. Div. 2d 184, 224 N. Y. S. 2d 705 (4th Dept. 1962).
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Auto
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Allen Snyder was convicted of first-degree murder in a Louisiana court and was sentenced to death. He asks us to review a decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court rejecting his claim that the prosecution exercised some of its peremptory jury challenges based on race, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986). We hold that the trial court committed clear error in its ruling on a Batson objection, and we therefore reverse.
I
The crime for which petitioner was convicted occurred in August 1995. At that time, petitioner and his wife, Mary, had separated. On August 15, they discussed the possibility of reconciliation, and Mary agreed to meet with petitioner the next day. That night, Mary went on a date with Howard Wilson. During the evening, petitioner repeatedly attempted to page Mary, but she did not respond. At approximately 1:30 a.m. on August 16, Wilson drove up to the home of Mary’s mother to drop Mary off. Petitioner was waiting at the scene armed with a knife. He opened the driver’s side door of Wilson’s car and repeatedly stabbed the occupants, killing Wilson and wounding Mary. The State charged petitioner with first-degree murder and sought the death penalty based on the aggravating circumstance that petitioner had knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person. See La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 905.4(A)(4) (West Supp. 2008).
Voir, dire began on Tuesday, August 27, 1996, and proceeded as follows. During the first phase, the trial court screened the panel to identify jurors who did not meet Louisiana’s requirements for jury service or claimed that service on the jury or sequestration for the duration of the trial would result in extreme hardship. More than 50 prospective jurors reported that they had work, family, or other commitments that would interfere with jury service. In each of those instances, the nature of the conflicting commitments was explored, and some of these jurors were dismissed. App. 58-164.
In the next phase, the court randomly selected panels of 13 potential jurors for further questioning. Id., at 166-167. The defense and prosecution addressed each panel and questioned the jurors both as a group and individually. At the conclusion of this questioning, the court ruled on challenges for cause. Then, the prosecution and the defense were given the opportunity to use peremptory challenges (each side had 12) to remove remaining jurors. The court continued this process' of calling 13-person panels until the jury was filled. In accordance with Louisiana law, the parties were permitted to exercise “backstrikes.” That is, they were allowed to use their peremptories up until the time when the final jury was sworn and thus were permitted to strike jurors whom they had initially accepted when the jurors’ panels were called. See La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 795(B)(1) (West 1998); State v. Taylor, 93-2201, pp. 22-23 (La. 2/28/96), 669 So. 2d 364, 376.
Eighty-five prospective jurors were questioned as members of a panel. Thirty-six of these survived challenges for cause; 5 of the 36 were black (as is petitioner); and all 5 of the prospective black jurors were eliminated by the prosecution through the use of peremptory strikes. The jury found petitioner guilty of first-degree murder and determined that he should receive the death penalty.
On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court conditionally affirmed petitioner’s conviction. The court rejected petitioner’s Batson claim but remanded the case for a nunc pro tunc determination of petitioner’s competency to stand trial. State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So. 2d 832. Two justices dissented and would have found a Batson violation. See id., at 866 (Johnson, J., dissenting), 863 (Lemmon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
On remand, the trial court found that petitioner had been competent to stand trial, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that determination. State v. Snyder, 1998-1078 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So. 2d 739. Petitioner petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, and while his petition was pending, this Court decided Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U. S. 231 (2005). We then granted the petition, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Louisiana Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Miller-El. Snyder v. Louisiana, 545 U. S. 1137 (2005). On remand, the Louisiana Supreme Court again rejected Snyder’s Batson claim, this time by a vote of 4 to 3. See 1998-1078 (La. 9/6/06), 942 So. 2d 484. We again granted certiorari, 551 U. S. 1144 (2007), and now reverse.
II
Batson provides a three-step process for a trial court to use in adjudicating a claim that a peremptory challenge was based on race:
“ ‘First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race[; sjecond, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question!; and t]hird, in light of the parties’ submissions, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination.’” Miller-El v. Dretke, supra, at 277 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322, 328-329 (2003)).
On appeal, a trial court’s ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U. S. 352, 369 (1991) (plurality opinion); id., at 372 (O’Connor, J., joined by Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). The trial court has a pivotal role in evaluating Batson claims. Step three of the Batson inquiry involves an evaluation of the prosecutor’s credibility, see 476 U. S., at 98, n. 21, and “the best evidence [of discriminatory intent] often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge,” Hernandez, 500 U. S., at 365 (plurality opinion). In addition, race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenges often invoke a juror’s demeanor (e. g., nervousness, inattention), making the trial court’s firsthand observations of even greater importance. In this situation, the trial court must evaluate not only whether the prosecutor’s demeanor belies a discriminatory intent, but also whether the juror’s demeanor can credibly be said to have exhibited the basis for the strike attributed to the juror by the prosecutor. We have recognized that these determinations of credibility and demeanor lie “‘peculiarly within a trial judge’s province,’ ” ibid, (quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412, 428 (1985)), and we have stated that “in the absence of exceptional circumstances, we would defer to [the trial court],” 500 U. S., at 366 (plurality opinion).
III
Petitioner centers his Batson claim on the prosecution’s strikes of two black jurors, Jeffrey Brooks and Elaine Scott.
Because we find that the trial court committed clear error in overruling petitioner’s Batson objection with respect to Mr. Brooks, we have no need to consider petitioner’s claim regarding Ms. Scott. See, e.g., United States v. Vasquez-Lopez, 22 F. 3d 900, 902 (CA9 1994) (“[T]he Constitution forbids striking even a single prospective juror for a discriminatory purpose”); United States v. Lane, 866 F. 2d 103, 105 (CA4 1989); United States v. Clemons, 843 F. 2d 741, 747 (CA3 1988); United States v. Battle, 836 F. 2d 1084, 1086 (CA8 1987); United States v. David, 803 F. 2d 1567, 1571 (CA11 1986).
In Miller-El v. Dretke, the Court made it clear that in considering a Batson objection, or in reviewing a ruling claimed to be Batson error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted. 545 U. S., at 239. Here, as just one example, if there were persisting doubts as to the outcome, a court would be required to consider the strike of Ms. Scott for the bearing it might have upon the strike of Mr. Brooks. In this case, however, the explanation given for the strike of Mr. Brooks is by itself unconvincing and suffices for the determination that there was Batson error.
When defense counsel made a Batson objection concerning the strike of Mr. Brooks, a college senior who was attempting to fulfill his student-teaching obligation, the prosecution offered two race-neutral reasons for the strike. The prosecutor explained:
“I thought about it last night. Number 1, the main reason is that he looked very nervous to me throughout the questioning. Number 2, he’s one of the fellows that came up at the beginning [of voir dire] and said he was going to miss class. He’s a student teacher. My main concern is for that reason, that being that he might, to go home quickly, come back with guilty of a lesser verdict so there wouldn’t be a penalty phase. Those are my two reasons.” App. 444.
Defense counsel disputed both explanations, id., at 444-445, and the trial judge ruled as follows: “All right. I’m going [to] allow the challenge. I’m going to allow the challenge,” id., at 445. We discuss the prosecution’s two proffered grounds for striking Mr. Brooks in turn.
A
With respect to the first reason, the Louisiana Supreme Court was correct that “nervousness cannot be shown from a cold transcript, which is why .. . the [trial] judge’s evaluation must be given much deference.” 942 So. 2d, at 496. As noted above, deference is especially appropriate where a trial judge has made a finding that an attorney credibly relied on demeanor in exercising a strike. Here, however, the record does not show that the trial judge actually made a determination concerning Mr. Brooks’ demeanor. The trial judge was given two explanations for the strike. Rather than making a specific finding on the record concerning Mr. Brooks’ demeanor, the trial judge simply allowed the challenge without explanation. It is possible that the judge did not have any impression one way or the other concerning Mr. Brooks’ demeanor. Mr. Brooks was not challenged until the day after he was questioned, and by that time dozens of other jurors had been questioned. Thus, the trial judge may not have recalled Mr. Brooks’ demeanor. Or, the trial judge may have found it unnecessary to consider Mr. Brooks’ demeanor, instead basing his ruling completely on the second proffered justification for the strike. For these reasons, we cannot presume that the trial judge credited the prosecutor’s assertion that Mr. Brooks was nervous.
B
The second reason proffered for the strike of Mr. Brooks— his student-teaching obligation — fails even under the highly deferential standard of review that is applicable here. At the beginning of voir dire, when the trial court asked the • members of the venire whether jury service or sequestration would pose an extreme hardship, Mr. Brooks was 1 of more than 50 members of the venire who expressed concern that jury service or sequestration would interfere with work, school, family, or other obligations.
When Mr. Brooks came forward, the following exchange took place:
“MR. JEFFREY BROOKS: ... I’m a student at Southern University, New Orleans. This is my last semester. My major requires me to student teach, and today I’ve already missed a half a day. That is part of my — it’s required for me to graduate this semester.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Mr. Brooks, if you — how many days would you miss if you were sequestered on this jury? Do you teach every day?
“MR. JEFFREY BROOKS: Five days a week.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Five days a week.
“MR. JEFFREY BROOKS: And it’s 8:30 through 3:00.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: If you missed this week, is there any way that you could make it up this semester?
“MR. JEFFREY BROOKS: Well, the first two weeks I observe, the remaining I begin teaching, so there is something I’m missing right now that will better me towards my teaching career.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Is there any way that you could make up the observed observation [sic] that you’re missing today, at another time?
“MR. JEFFREY BROOKS: It may be possible, I’m not sure.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. So that—
“THE COURT: Is there anyone we could call, like a Dean or anything, that we could speak to?
“MR: JEFFREY BROOKS: Actually I spoke to my Dean, Doctor Tillman, who’s at the university probably right now.
“THE COURT: All right.
“MR. JEFFREY BROOKS: Would you like to speak to him?
“THE COURT: Yeah.
“MR. JEFFREY BROOKS: I don’t have his card on me.
“THE COURT: Why don’t you give [a law clerk] his number, give [a law clerk] his name and we’ll call him and we’ll see what we can do.
“(MR. JEFFREY BROOKS LEFT THE BENCH).” App. 102-104.
Shortly thereafter, the court again spoke with Mr. Brooks:
“THE LAW CLERK: Jeffrey Brooks, the requirement for his teaching is a three hundred clock hour observation. Doctor Tillman at Southern University said that as long as it’s just this week, he doesn’t see that it would cause a problem with Mr. Brooks completing his observation time within this semester.
“(MR. BROOKS APPROACHED THE BENCH)
“THE COURT: We talked to Doctor Tillman and he says he doesn’t see a problem as long as it’s just this week, you know, he’ll work with you on it. Okay?
“MR. JEFFREY BROOKS: Okay.
“(MR. JEFFREY BROOKS LEFT THE BENCH).” Id., at 116.
Once Mr. Brooks heard the law clerk’s report about the conversation with Doctor Tillman, Mr. Brooks did not express any further concern about serving on the jury, and the prosecution did not choose to question him more deeply about this matter.
The colloquy with Mr. Brooks and the law clerk’s report took place on Tuesday, August 27; the prosecution struck Mr. Brooks the following day, Wednesday, August 28; the guilt phase of petitioner’s trial ended the next day, Thursday, August 29; and the penalty phase was completed by the end of the week, on Friday, August 30.
The prosecutor’s second proffered reason for striking Mr. Brooks must be evaluated in light of these circumstances. The prosecutor claimed to be apprehensive that Mr. Brooks, in order to minimize the student-teaching hours missed during jury service, might have been motivated to find petitioner guilty, not of first-degree murder, but of a lesser included offense because this would obviate the need for a penalty phase proceeding. But this scenario was highly speculative. Even if Mr. Brooks had favored a quick resolution, that would not have necessarily led him to reject a finding of first-degree murder. If the majority of jurors had initially favored a finding of first-degree murder, Mr. Brooks’ purported inclination might have led him to agree in order to speed the deliberations. Only if all or most of the other jurors had favored the lesser verdict would Mr. Brooks have been in a position to shorten the trial by favoring such a verdict.
.Perhaps most telling, the brevity of petitioner’s trial— something that the prosecutor anticipated on the record during voir dire — meant that serving on the jury would not have seriously interfered with Mr. Brooks’ ability to complete his required student teaching. As noted, petitioner’s trial was completed by Friday, August 30. If Mr. Brooks, who reported to court and was peremptorily challenged on Wednesday, August 28, had been permitted to serve, he would have missed only two additional days of student teaching, Thursday, August 29, and Friday, August 30. Mr. Brooks’ dean promised to “work with” Mr. Brooks to see that he was able to make up any student-teaching time that he missed due to jury service; the dean stated that he did not think that this would be a problem; and the record contains no suggestion that Mr. Brooks remained troubled after hearing the report of the dean’s remarks. In addition, although the record does not include the academic calendar of Mr. Brooks’ university, it is apparent that the trial occurred relatively early in the fall semester. With many weeks remaining in the term, Mr. Brooks would have needed to make up no more than an hour or two per week in order to compensate for the time that he would have lost due to jury service. When all of these considerations are taken into account, the prosecutor’s second proffered justification for striking Mr. Brooks is suspicious.
The implausibility of this explanation is reinforced by the prosecutor’s acceptance of white jurors who disclosed conflicting obligations that appear to have been at least as serious as Mr. Brooks’. We recognize that a retrospective comparison of jurors based on a cold appellate record may be very misleading when alleged similarities were not raised at trial. In that situation, an appellate court must be mindful that an exploration of the alleged similarities at the time of trial might have shown that the jurors in question were not really comparable. In this case, however, the shared characteristic, i. e., concern about serving on the jury due to conflicting obligations, was thoroughly explored by the trial court when the relevant jurors asked to be excused for cause.
A comparison between Mr. Brooks and Roland Laws, a white juror, is particularly striking. During the initial stage of voir dire, Mr. Laws approached the court and offered strong reasons why serving on the sequestered jury would cause him hardship. Mr. Laws stated that he was “a self-employed general contractor,” with “two houses that are nearing completion, one [with the occupants] . . . moving in this weekend.” Id., at 129. He explained that, if he served on the jury, “the people won’t [be able to] move in.” Id., at 130. Mr. Laws also had demanding family obligations:
“[M]y wife just had a hysterectomy, so I’m running the kids back and forth to school, and we’re not originally from here, so I have no family in the area, so between the two things, it’s kind of bad timing for me.” Ibid.
Although these obligations seem substantially more pressing than Mr. Brooks’, the prosecution questioned Mr. Laws and attempted to elicit assurances that he would be able to serve despite his work and family obligations. See ibid, (prosecutor asking Mr. Laws “[i]f you got stuck on jury duty anyway . . . would you try to make other arrangements as best you could?”). And the prosecution declined the opportunity to use a peremptory strike on Mr. Laws. Id., at 549. If the prosecution had been sincerely concerned that Mr. Brooks would favor a lesser verdict than first-degree murder in order to shorten the trial, it is hard to see why the prosecution would not have had at least as much concern regarding Mr. Laws.
The situation regarding another white juror, John Donnes, although less fully developed, is also significant. At the end of the first day of voir dire, Mr. Donnes approached the court and raised the possibility that he would have an important work commitment later that week. Id., at 349. Because Mr. Donnes stated that he would know the next morning whether he would actually have a problem, the court suggested that Mr. Donnes raise the matter again at that time. Ibid. The next day, Mr. Donnes again expressed concern about serving, stating that, in order to serve, “I’d have to cancel too many things,” including an urgent appointment at which his presence was essential. Id., at 467-468. Despite Mr. Donnes’ concern, the prosecution did not strike him. Id., at 490.
As previously noted, the question presented at the third stage of the Batson inquiry is “ ‘whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination.’” Müler-El v. Dretke, 545 U. S., at 277 (Thomas, J., dissenting). The prosecution’s proffer of this pretextual explanation naturally gives rise to an inference of discriminatory intent. See id., at 252 (opinion of the Court) (noting the “pretextual significance” of a “stated reason [that] does not hold up”); Purkett v. Elem, 514 U. S. 765, 768 (1995) (per curiam) (“At [the third] stage, implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be pretexts for purposeful discrimination”); Hernandez, 500 U. S., at 365 (plurality opinion) (“In the typical peremptory challenge inquiry, the decisive question will be whether counsel’s race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge should be believed”). Cf. St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502, 511 (1993) (“[Rejection of the defendant’s proffered [nondiscriminatory] reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination”).
In other circumstances, we have held that, once it is shown that a discriminatory intent was a substantial or motivating factor in an action taken by a state actor, the burden shifts to the party defending the action to show that this factor was not determinative. See Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U. S. 222, 228 (1985). We have not previously applied this rule in a Batson case, and we need not decide here whether that standard governs in this context. For present purposes, it is enough to recognize that a peremptory strike shown to have been motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent could not be sustained based on any lesser showing by the prosecution. And in light of the circumstances here— including absence of anything in the record showing that the trial judge credited the claim that Mr. Brooks was nervous, the prosecution’s description of both of its proffered explanations as “main concern[s],” App. 444, and the adverse inference noted above — the record does not show that the prosecution would have pre-emptively challenged Mr. Brooks based on his nervousness alone. See Hunter, supra, at 228.
Nor is there any realistic possibility that this subtle question of causation could be profitably explored further on remand at this late date, more than a decade after petitioner’s trial.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
See, e. g., App. 98,105, 111, 121,130, 204.
The Louisiana Supreme Court did not hold that petitioner had procedurally defaulted reliance on a comparison of the African-American jurors whom the prosecution struck with white jurors whom the prosecution accepted. On the contrary, the State Supreme Court itself made such a comparison. See 942 So. 2d 484, 495-496 (2006).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether 18 U. S. C. § 844(i) applies to a two-unit apartment building that is used as rental property.
Petitioner owns an apartment building located at 4530 South Union, Chicago, Illinois. He earned rental income from it and treated it as business property for tax purposes. In early 1983, he made an unsuccessful attempt to set fire to the building and was consequently indicted for violating §844(i). Following a bench trial, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. The District Court and the Court of Appeals both rejected his contention that the building was not commercial or business property, and therefore was not capable of being the subject of an offense under § 844(i).
Section 844(i) uses broad language to define the offense. It provides:
“Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not more than ten years or fined not more than $10,000, or both. . . .”
The reference to “any building . . . used ... in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce” expresses an intent by Congress to exercise its full power under the Commerce Clause.
The legislative history indicates that Congress intended to exercise its full power to protect “business property.” Moreover, after considering whether the bill as originally introduced would cover bombings of police stations or churches, the bill was revised to eliminate the words “for business purposes” from the description of covered property. Even after that change, however, the final Report on the bill emphasized the “very broad” coverage of “substantially all business property.” In the floor debates on the final bill, although it was recognized that the coverage of the bill was extremely broad, the Committee Chairman, Representative Celler, expressed the opinion that “the mere bombing of a private home even under this bill would not be covered because of the question whether the Congress would have the authority under the Constitution.” In sum, the legislative history suggests that Congress at least intended to protect all business property, as well as some additional property that might not fit that description, but perhaps not every private home.
By its terms, however, the statute only applies to property that is “used” in an “activity” that affects commerce. The rental of real estate is unquestionably such an activity. We need not rely on the connection between the market for residential units and “the interstate movement of people,” to recognize that the local rental of an apartment unit is merely an element of a much broader commercial market in rental properties. The congressional power to regulate the class of activities that constitute the rental market for real estate includes the power to regulate individual activity within that class.
Petitioner was renting his apartment building to tenants at the time he attempted to destroy it by fire. The property was therefore being used in an activity affecting commerce within the meaning of §844(i).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Petitioner hired Ralph Branch, a convicted felon, to start a fire in the building by using a natural gas line in the basement. Branch attempted to start a fire by lighting a potato-chip bag and a piece of wood, but was unsuccessful in torching the building. 1 Tr. 35-39. Petitioner asked Branch to make a second attempt; however, Branch reported the events to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and consented to tape-record a conversation with petitioner. After the conversation, petitioner was arrested. The fire was never set. Id., at 41-50.
563 F. Supp. 1085 (ND Ill., ED 1983).
738 F. 2d 825 (CA7 1984).
See Scarborough v. United States, 431 U. S. 563, 571 (1977), in which the Court stated:
“As we have previously observed, Congress is aware of the ‘distinction between legislation limited to activities “in commerce” and an assertion of its full Commerce Clause power so as to cover all activity substantially affecting interstate commerce.’ United States v. American Bldg. Maintenance Industries, 422 U. S. 271, 280 (1975); see also NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Corp., 371 U. S. 224, 226 (1963).”
Section 844(i) was passed as part of Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. 84 Stat. 922, 952. The section originated because of the need “to curb the use, transportation, and possession of explosives.” Hearings on H. R. 17154, H. R. 16699, H. R. 18573 and Related Proposals before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1970) (hereinafter Hearings). After hearings before a House Subcommittee, Title XI emerged from two bills, H. R. 18573 and H. R. 16699, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., that Representative McCullough introduced in the House of Representatives and that were referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 116 Cong. Rec. 35198 (1970) (statement of Rep. McCullough). H. R. 16699 stated, in pertinent part:
“(f) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used for business purposes by a person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall be imprisoned for not more than ten years or fined not more than $10,000, or both. . . .” Hearings, at 30 (emphasis added).
During the hearings there were several discussions and statements on the reach of subsection (f) of H. R. 16699. Will R. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, stated early in the hearings:
“[W]e have added a new provision (subsection (f)) covering malicious damage or destruction by means of an explosive of any property used for business purposes by a person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce. . . . Since the term ‘affecting commerce’ embraces ‘the fullest jurisdictional breadth constitutionally permissible under the commerce clause,’ NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Corp., 371 U. S. 224, 226 (1963), subsection (f) would cover damage by explosives to substantially any business property.” Id., at 37.
Shortly after Assistant Attorney General Wilson made the comment quoted in n. 5, supra, Representative Rodino of New Jersey engaged in the following colloquy with Wilson:
“Mr. Rodino. That is the problem.
“Mr. Wilson, subsection (f) of section 837, as proposed by H. R. 16699, applies to structures used ‘for business purposes.’ I am a little bit in the dark. Would this section and these words cover the bombings of police stations? . . . Just what would new section 837(f) cover?
“Mr. Wilson. I don’t believe it would cover either public buildings or private homes under normal use, but what this is designed for is the business office, where the business is interstate commerce, giving the Federal Government a basis for jurisdiction. It is to broaden the thing, to get at such things as the bombing of business offices in New York City, where the business is in interstate commerce..
“Mr. Rodino. Would it apply to the bombings of churches, synagogues, or religious edifices?
“Mr. Wilson. I don’t think so.” Hearings, at 56.
See id., at 300:
“The CHAIRMAN. The question is whether you want to broaden it to cover a private dwelling or a church or other property not used in business.
“Mr. Wylie. As far as I am concerned we could leave out the words ‘for business purposes,’ and it would help the situation. . . .”
The phrase “for business purposes” was not included when the House Committee on the Judiciary amended S. 30 and those words were omitted from the statute as finally enacted.
The Report stated in pertinent part:
“Section 844(i) proscribes the malicious damaging or destroying, by means of an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal.property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Attempts would also be covered. Since the term affecting [interstate or foreign] ‘commerce’ represents ‘the fullest jurisdictional breadth constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause,’ NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Corp., 371 U. S. 224, 226 (1963), this is a very broad provision covering substantially all business property.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, pp. 69-70 (1970).
See 116 Cong. Rec. 35359 (1970); see also id., at 35198 (“[T]he committee extended the provision protecting interstate and foreign commerce from the malicious use of explosives to the full extent of our constitutional powers”) (statement of Rep. McCullough); id., at 37187 (“The reach of the law ... is greatly extended by making it unlawful to damage or destroy property which is used in or affects interstate commerce. Nearly all types of property will now be protected by the Federal law”) (statement of Rep. MacGregor).
See McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, 444 U. S. 232, 245 (1980).
See Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146, 153-154 (1971).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Prince Ricker, appellant’s father, died intestate on December 22, 1976. At that time, § 38 of the Texas Probate Code provided that a decedent’s estate should descend to “his children and their descendants,” but §42 prohibited an illegitimate child from inheriting from her father unless her parents had subsequently married. In Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762 (1977)—decided four months after Ricker’s death— we held that a total statutory disinheritance, from the paternal estate, of children born out of wedlock and not legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents is unconstitutional. In this case, the Texas Court of Appeals held that §42 of the Texas Probate Code nevertheless prevented appellant from sharing in her father’s estate because Trimble does not apply retroactively. The Texas Supreme Court refused appellant’s application of error, noting “no reversible error.” We noted probable jurisdiction, 474 U. S. 1018 (1985), and now reverse.
I
Only a few facts need be stated. In November 1957, Prince Ricker and appellant’s mother participated in a ceremonial marriage, but it was invalid because Ricker’s divorce from his first wife was not final. Appellant was born a year later. Ricker was lawfully married three times, once before and twice after his liaison with appellant’s mother. He was survived by five legitimate children (two from his first and three from his third marriage) and by appellant.
Shortly after Ricker’s death in 1976, his oldest daughter was appointed administratrix of his estate. The estate was still open in February 1978, when appellant formally notified the administratrix and the Probate Court of her claim to a one-sixth share of the estate. In due course, she filed a formal complaint; a jury found that Ricker was her father but the trial court concluded that he was never validly married to her mother and denied her claim.
In the Court of Appeals, appellant contended that she was entitled to inherit even if she was illegitimate because § 42 was unconstitutional, and also that she was entitled to be legitimated on various theories. The appellate court rejected all her arguments.
II
Although the question presented in this case is framed in terms of “retroactivity,” its answer is governed by a rather clear distinction that has emerged from our cases considering the constitutionality of statutory provisions that impose special burdens on illegitimate children. In these cases, we have unambiguously concluded that a State may not justify discriminatory treatment of illegitimates in order to express its disapproval of their parents’ misconduct. We have, however, also recognized that there is a permissible basis for some “distinctions made in part on the basis of legitimacy”; specifically, we have upheld statutory provisions that have an evident and substantial relation to the State’s interest in providing for the orderly and just distribution of a decedent’s property at death. Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U. S. 259 (1978).
The state interest in the orderly disposition of decedents’ estates may justify the imposition of special requirements upon an illegitimate child who asserts a right to inherit from her father, and, of course, it justifies the enforcement of generally applicable limitations on the time and the manner in which claims may be asserted. After an estate has been finally distributed, the interest in finality may provide an additional, valid justification for barring the belated assertion of claims, even though they may be meritorious and even though mistakes of law or fact may have occurred during the probate process. We find no such justification for the State’s rejection of appellant’s claim in this case.
The Texas courts have relied on Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762 (1977), as a basis for holding § 42 invalid in cases that were pending on April 26, 1977 — the date Trimble was decided. See Winn v. Lackey, 618 S. W. 2d 910 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981); Lovejoy v. Lillie, 569 S. W. 2d 501 (Texas Civ. App. 1978). Although the administration of Prince Ricker’s estate was in progress on that date, the court refused to apply Trimble because appellant’s claim was not asserted until later. Thus, the test applied by the Texas court resulted in the denial of appellant’s claim because of the conjunction of two facts: (1) her father died before April 26, 1977, and (2) her claim was filed after April 26, 1977.
There is nothing in the record to explain why these two facts, either separately or in combination, should have prevented the applicability of Trimble, and the allowance of appellant’s claim, at the time when the trial court was required to make a decision. At that time, the governing law had been established: Trimble had been decided, and it was clear that §42 was invalid. The state interest in the orderly administration of Prince Ricker’s estate would have been served equally well regardless of how the merits of the claim were resolved. In this case, then, neither the date of his death nor the date the claim was filed had any impact on the relevant state interest in orderly administration; their conjunction similarly had no impact on that state interest.
The interest in equal treatment protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution — more specifically, the interest in avoiding unjustified discrimination against children born out of wedlock, see Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 505 (1976) — should therefore have been given controlling effect. That interest requires that appellant’s claim to a share in her father’s estate be protected by the full applicability of Trimble to her claim.
The judgment of the Texas Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
See Tex. Prob. Code Ann. § 38(a) (Vernon 1980) (“Where any person having title to any estate, . . . shall die intestate, leaving no husband or wife, it shall descend and pass in parcenary to his kindred, male and female, in the following course: 1. To his children and their descendants . . .”).
See Tex. Prob. Code Ann. §42 (Vernon 1956) (“For the purpose of inheritance to, through, and from an illegitimate child, such child shall be treated the same as if he were the legitimate child of his mother, so that he and his issue shall inherit from his mother and from his maternal kindred, both descendants, ascendants, and collaterals in all degrees, and they may inherit from him”) (emphasis added).
“Under the rule of Winn v. Lackey, [618 S. W. 2d 910 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981)] and the out-of-state cases cited therein, the equal protection argument fails as Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762 . . . (1977), has not been applied retroactively where the father died before the case came down and suit was filed afterwards.” 682 S. W. 2d 697, 700 (Tex. App. 1984).
In her jurisdictional statement, appellant raised several questions that relate to the legitimation issue. Because we hold that she is entitled to relief on her principal claim, and because the legitimation questions appear not to have been properly presented as federal questions, see appellant’s brief before the Texas Court of Appeals (presenting only the Trimble question as a federal constitutional issue), we do not reach the legitimation issue.
“It is true, of course, that the legal status of illegitimacy, however defined, is, like race or national origin, a characteristic determined by causes not within the control of the illegitimate individual, and it bears no relation to the individual’s ability to participate in and contribute to society. The Court recognized in Weber [v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164 (1972)] that visiting condemnation upon the child in order to express society’s disapproval of the parents’ liaisons
‘“is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the illegitimate child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth and penalizing the illegitimate child is an ineffectual — as well as an unjust — way of deterring the parent.’ 406 U. S., at 175. (Footnote omitted.)” Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 505 (1976).
Ibid.
“The presence in this case of the State’s interest in the.orderly disposition of a decedent’s property at death distinguishes it from others in which that justification for an illegitimacy-based classification was absent. E. g., Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U. S. 628 (1974); Gomez v. Perez, 409 U. S. 535 (1973); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 170 (1972); Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 68 (1968).” 439 U. S., at 268, n. 6 (opinion of Powell, J.).
Although the dissenters did not believe the state interest was sufficient to support the particular statute before the Court in that ease, they agreed with the basic proposition that this state interest may justify some differential treatment — “New York might require illegitimates to prove paternity by an elevated standard of proof,” id., at 279 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
In addition to concluding that Trimble did not apply, the Texas Court of Appeals stated that “[e]ven if the plaintiff could claim under section 42(b) as amended, her exclusion from the inheritance under that statute does not deny her constitutional equal protection since a rational state basis supports that legislation.” 682 S. W. 2d, at 700. We read that statement, not as an alternative ground for the court’s judgment, but as the rejection of an alternative ground for appellant’s recovery. To read it as assuming that the amended statute defeated appellant’s claim, even if Trimble applied, would, in the context of this case and the amended statute’s requirements, raise serious due process questions.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to resolve important questions concerning the restrictions the Speech or Debate Clause places on the admissibility of evidence at a trial on charges that a former Member of the House had, while a Member, accepted money in return for promising to introduce and introducing private bills.
I
Respondent Helstoski is a former Member of the United States House of Representatives from New Jersey. In 1974, while Helstoski was a Member of the House, the Department of Justice began investigating reported political corruption, including allegations that aliens had paid money for the introduction of private bills which would suspend the application of the immigration laws so as to allow them to remain in this country.
The investigation was carried on before nine grand juries. The grand juries were called according to the regular practice in the District of New Jersey, which was to have a different grand jury sitting on each of six days during the week; on two days there was a second grand jury. When the United States Attorney was ready to present evidence, he presented it to whichever grand jury was sitting that day. There was therefore no assurance that any grand jury which voted an indictment would see and hear all of the witnesses or see all of the documentary evidence. It was contemplated that the grand jury that was asked to return an indictment would review transcripts of relevant testimony presented to other grand juries.
Helstoski appeared voluntarily before grand juries on 10 occasions between April 1974 and May 1976. Each time he appeared, he was told that he had certain constitutional rights. Different terms were used by different attorneys for the United States, but the following exchange, which occurred at Helstoski’s first appearance before a grand jury, fairly represents the several exchanges:
“Q. You were told at that time [at the office of the United States Attorney earlier] — and just to repeat them today — before we begin you were told that you did not have to give any testimony to the Grand Jury or make any statements to any officer of the United States. You understand that, do you not?
“A. I come with full and unlimited cooperation.
“Q. I understand that. . . .
“Q. And that you also know that anything that you may say to any agent of the United States or to this Grand Jury may later be used in a court of law against you; you understand that as well?
[Affirmative response given.]
“A. Whatever is in my possession, in my files, in its original form, will be turned over. Those files which I have — some of them are very, very old. I’ve been in Congress since 1965. We mentioned this.
“Q. The Grand Jury wants from you simply the records that are in your possession, whether it be in your office in East Rutherford, New Jersey, Washington, D. C., your home, wherever they may be, the Grand Jury would like you to present those documents. Of course, you understand that if you wish not to present those documents you do not have to and that anything you do present may also, as I have told you about your personal testimony, may be used against you later in a court of law?
“A. I understand that. Whatever I have will be turned over to you with full cooperation of [sic] this Grand Jury and with yourself, sir.
“A. I understand that. I promise full cooperation with your office, with the FBI, this Grand Jury.
“Q. The Grand Jury is appreciative of that fact. They also want to make certain that when you are giving this cooperation that you understand, as with anyone else that might be called before a United States Grand Jury, exactly what their constitutional rights are. And that is why I have gone through this step by step carefully so there will be no question and there will be no doubt in anybody’s mind.
“A. As I indicated, I come with no request for immunity and you can be assured there won’t be any plea of the Fifth Amendment under any circumstances.”
Helstoski testified as to his practices in introducing private immigration bills, and he produced, his files on numerous private bills. Included in the files were correspondence with a former legislative aide and with individuals for whom bills were introduced. He also provided copies of 169 bills introduced on behalf of various aliens.
Beginning with his fourth appearance before a grand jury, in October 1975, Helstoski objected to the burden imposed by the requests for information. The requests, he claimed, violated his own right of privacy and that of his constituents. In that appearance, he also stated that there were “some serious Constitutional questions” raised by the failure of the United States Attorney to return tax records which Helstoski had voluntarily delivered. He did not, however, assert a privilege against producing documents until the seventh appearance, on December 12, 1975. Then he declined to answer questions, complaining that the United States Attorney had stated to the District Court that the grand jury had concluded that Helstoski had misapplied campaign funds. He asserted a general invocation of rights under the Constitution and specifically listed the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
At the next, and eighth, appearance on December 29, 1975, he repeated his objections to the conduct of the United States Attorney. After answering questions about campaign financing, personal loans, and other topics, he declined to answer questions about the receipt of a sum of money. That action was based upon his privilege under the Fifth0, Amendment “and on further grounds that to answer that question would violate my rights under the Constitution.”
Because the grand jury considered that Helstoski’s invocation of constitutional privileges was too general to be acceptable, it adjourned and reconvened before the District Judge to seek a ruling on Helstoski’s claim of privilege “under the Constitution.” After questioning Helstoski, the judge stated that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was the only privilege available to Helstoski. The judge assisted Helstoski in wording a statement invoking the privilege that was satisfactory to the grand jury. Thereafter, Helstoski invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to answer further questions, including a series of questions about private immigration bills.
Not until his ninth, and penultimate, appearance before a grand jury did Helstoski assert any privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause. On May 7, 1976, Helstoski asked if he was a target of the investigation. The prosecutor declined to answer the question, stating “it would be inappropriate for this Grand Jury or indeed for me to say that you are a target.” Helstoski then invoked his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and declined to answer further questions or to produce documents. He also declined to produce a copy of an insert from the Congressional Record, saying “I consulted with my attorneys and based on the statement that was made on the floor, I don’t have any right to be questioned at any other time or place as reference to statements made on the floor of Congress.”
Although that was the first instance which can even remotely be characterized as rebanee upon the Speech or Debate Clause, Helstoski earlier had indicated an awareness of another aspect of the constitutional privileges afforded Congressmen. During his fourth appearance before a grand jury, in October 1975, Helstoski complained that he had been served with a subpoena directing him to appear before a grand jury on a day that Congress was in session.
At his 10th, and final, appearance before a grand jury, Hel-stoski invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. But he also referred repeatedly to “other constitutional privileges which prevail.” Nevertheless, he continued to promise to produce campaign and personal financial records as requested by the grand jury and directed by the District Judge.
II
In June 1976, a grand jury returned a multiple-count indictment charging Helstoski and others with various criminal acts. Helstoski moved to dismiss the indictment, contending that the grand jury process had been abused and that the indictment violated the Speech or Debate Clause.
The District Judge denied the motion after examining a transcript of the evidence presented to the indicting grand jury. He held that the Speech or Debate Clause did not require dismissal. He also ruled that the Government would not be allowed to offer evidence of the actual performance of any legislative acts. That ruling prompted the Government to file a motion requesting that the judge pass on the admissibility of 23 categories of evidence. The Government urged that a ruling was necessary to avoid the possibility of a mistrial. Helstoski opposed the motion, arguing that the witnesses would not testify as the Government indicated in its proffer.
The District Judge declined to rule separately on each of the categories. Instead, he ordered:
“The United States may not, during the presentation of its case-in-chief at the trial of [this] Indictment, introduce evidence of the performance of a past legislative act on the part of the defendant, Henry Helstoski, derived from any source and for any purpose.” (Emphasis added.)
The Government filed a timely appeal from the evidentiary ruling, relying upon 18 U. S. C. § 3731:
“An appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision or order of a district court suppressing or excluding evidence . . . not made after the defendant has been put in jeopardy and before the verdict or finding on an indictment or information, if the United States attorney certifies to the district court that the appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.
“The appeal in all such cases shall be taken within thirty days after the decision, judgment or order has been rendered and shall be diligently prosecuted.
“The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.”
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s evi-dentiary ruling. 576 F. 2d 511 (CA3 1978). It first concluded that an appeal was proper under § 3731, relying primarily upon its earlier decision in United States v. Beck, 483 F. 2d 203 (1973), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 1132 (1974), and upon the language in the section mandating that it be “liberally construed.”
Turning to the merits of the Government’s appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected both of the Government’s arguments: (a) that legislative acts could be introduced to show motive; and (b) that legislative acts could be introduced because Helstoski had waived his privilege by testifying before the grand juries. The court relied upon language in United States v. Brewster, 408 U. S. 501, 527 (1972), prohibiting the introduction of evidence as to how a Congressman acted on, voted on, or resolved a legislative issue. The court reasoned that to permit evidence of such acts under the guise of showing motive would negate the protection afforded by the Speech or Debate Clause.
In holding Helstoski had not waived the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause, the Court of Appeals did not decide whether the protection could be waived. Rather, it assumed that a Member of Congress could waive the privilege, but held that any waiver must be “express and for the specific purpose for which the evidence of legislative acts is sought to be used against the member.” 576 F. 2d, at 523-524. Any lesser standard, the court reasoned, would frustrate the purpose of the Clause. Having found on the record before it that no waiver was shown, it affirmed the District Court order under which the Government is precluded from introducing evidence of past legislative acts in any form.
In seeking review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the Government contends that the Speech or Debate Clause does not bar the introduction of all evidence referring to legislative acts. It concedes that, absent a waiver, it may not introduce the bills themselves. But the Government argues that the Clause does not prohibit it from introducing evidence of discussions and correspondence which describe and refer to legislative acts if the discussions and correspondence did not occur during the legislative process. The Government contends that it seeks to introduce such evidence to show Helstoski's motive for taking money, not to show his motive for introducing the bills. Alternatively, the Government contends that Helstoski waived his protection under the Speech or Debate Clause when he voluntarily presented evidence to the grand juries. Volunteered evidence, the Government argues, is admissible at trial regardless of its content.
Finally, the Government argues, by enacting 18 U. S. C. § 201, Congress has shared its authority with the Executive and the Judiciary by express delegation authorizing the indictment and trial of Members who violate that section — in short an institutional decision to waive the privilege of the Clause.
Ill
The Court’s holdings in United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169 (1966), and United States v. Brewster, supra, leave no doubt that evidence of a legislative act of a Member may not be introduced by the Government in a prosecution under § 201. In Johnson there had been extensive questioning of both Johnson, a former Congressman, and others about a speech which Johnson had delivered in the House of Representatives and the motive for the speech. The Court’s conclusion was unequivocal:
“We see no escape from the conclusion that such an intensive judicial inquiry, made in the course of a prosecution by the Executive Branch under a general conspiracy statute, violates the express language of the Constitution and the policies which underlie it.” 383 U. S., at 177.
In Brewster, we explained the holding of Johnson in this way:
“Johnson thus stands as a unanimous holding that a Member of Congress may be prosecuted under a criminal statute provided that the Government’s case does not rely on legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts. A legislative act has consistently been defined as an act generally done in Congress in relation to the business before it. In sum, the Speech or Debate Clause prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the motivation for those acts.” 408 U. S., at 512.
The Government, however, argues that exclusion of references to past legislative acts will make prosecutions more difficult because such references are essential to show the motive for taking money. In addition, the Government argues that the exclusion of references to past acts is not logically consistent. In its view, if jurors are told of promises to perform legislative acts they will infer that the acts were performed, thereby calling the acts themselves into question.
We do not accept the Government’s arguments; without doubt the exclusion of such evidence will make prosecutions more difficult. Indeed, the Speech or Debate Clause was designed to preclude prosecution of Members for legislative acts. The Clause protects “against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course, of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts.” Id., at 525. It “precludes any showing of how [a legislator] acted, voted, or decided.” Id., at 527. Promises by a Member to perform an act in the future are not legislative acts. Brewster makes clear that the “compact” may be shown without impinging on the legislative function. Id., at 526.
We therefore agree with the Court of Appeals that references to past legislative acts of a Member cannot be admitted without undermining the values protected by the Clause. We implied as much in Brewster when we explained: “To make a prima facie case under [the] indictment, the Government need not show any act of [Brewster] subsequent to the corrupt promise for payment, for it is taking the bribe, not performance of the illicit compact, that is a criminal act.” Ibid. (Emphasis altered.) A similar inference is appropriate from Johnson where we held that the Clause was violated by questions about motive addressed to others than Johnson himself. That holding would have been unnecessary if the Clause did not afford protection beyond legislative acts themselves.
Me. Justice Stevens misconstrues our holdings on the Speech or Debate Clause in urging: “The admissibility line should be based on the purpose of the offer rather than the specificity of the reference.” Post, at 496. The Speech or Debate Clause does not refer to the prosecutor’s purpose in offering evidence. The Clause does not simply state, “No proof of a legislative act shall be offered”; the prohibition of the Clause is far broader. It provides that Members “shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Indeed, as Mr. Justice Stevens recognizes, the admission of evidence of legislative acts “may reveal [to the jury] some information about the performance of legislative acts and the legislator’s motivation in conducting official duties.” Post, at 496. Revealing information as to a legislative act — speaking or debating — to a jury would subject a Member to being “questioned” in a place other than the House or Senate, thereby violating the explicit prohibition of the Speech or Debate Clause.
As to what restrictions the Clause places on the admission of evidence, our concern is not with the “specificity” of the reference. Instead, our concern is whether there is mention of a legislative act. . To effectuate the intent of the Clause, the Court has construed it to protect other “legislative acts” such as utterances in committee hearings and reports. E. g., Doe v. McMillan, 412 U. S. 306 (1973). But it is clear from the language of the Clause that protection extends only to an act that has already been performed. A promise to deliver a speech, to vote, or to solicit other votes at some future date is not “speech or debate.” Likewise, a promise to introduce a bill is not a legislative act. Thus, in light of the strictures of Johnson and Brewster, the District Court order prohibiting the introduction of evidence “of the performance of a past legislative act” was redundant.
The Government argues that the prohibition of the introduction of evidence should not apply in this case because the protections of the Clause have been waived. The Government suggests two sources of waiver: (a) Helstoski’s conduct and utterances, and (b) the enactment of 18 U. S. C. § 201 by Congress. The Government argues that Helstoski waived the protection of the Clause by testifying before the grand juries and voluntarily producing documentary evidence of legislative acts. The Government contends that Helstoski’s conduct is sufficient to meet whatever standard is required for a waiver of that protection. We cannot agree.
Like the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we perceive no reason to decide whether an individual Member may waive the Speech or Debate Clause’s protection against being prosecuted for a legislative act. Assuming that is possible. we hold that waiver can. be found only after explicit and unequivocal renunciation of the protection. The ordinary rules for determining the appropriate standard of waiver do not apply in this setting. See generally Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938) (“intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege”); Garner v. United States, 424 U. S. 648, 654 n. 9, 657 (1976).
The Speech or Debate Clause was designed neither to assure fair trials nor to avoid coercion. Rather, its purpose was to preserve the constitutional structure of separate, coequal, and independent branches of government. The English and American history of the privilege suggests that any lesser standard would risk intrusion by the Executive and the Judiciary into the sphere of protected legislative activities. The importance of the principle was recognized as early as 1808 in Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 27, where the court said that the purpose of the principle was to secure to every member “exemption from prosecution, for every thing said or done by him, as a representative, in the exercise of the functions of that office.” (Emphasis added.)
This Court has reiterated the central importance of the Clause for preventing intrusion by Executive and Judiciary into the legislative sphere.
“[I]t is apparent from the history of the clause that the privilege was not born primarily of a desire to avoid private suits . . . but rather to prevent intimidation by the executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary.
“There is little doubt that the instigation of criminal charges against critical or disfavored legislators by the executive in a judicial forum was the chief fear prompting the long struggle for parliamentary privilege in England and, in the context of the American system of separation of powers, is the predominate thrust of the Speech or Debate Clause.” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S., at 180-181, 182.
We reaffirmed that principle in Gravel v. United States, 408 U. S. 606, 618 (1972), when we noted that the “fundamental purpose” of the Clause was to free “the legislator from executive and judicial oversight that realistically threatens to control his conduct as a legislator.”
On the record before us, Helstoski’s words and conduct cannot be seen as an explicit and unequivocal waiver of his immunity from prosecution for legislative acts — assuming such a waiver can be made. The exchanges between Helsto-ski and the various United States Attorneys indeed indicate a willingness to waive the protection of the Fifth Amendment; but the Speech or Debate Clause provides a separate, and distinct, protection which calls for at least as clear and unambiguous an expression of waiver. No such showing appears on this record.
The Government also argues that there has been a sort of institutional waiver by Congress in enacting § 201. According to the Government, § 201 represents a collective decision to enlist the aid of the Executive Branch and the courts in the exercise of Congress’ powers under Art. I, § 6, to discipline its Members. This Court has twice declined to decide whether a Congressman could, consistent with the Clause, be prosecuted for a legislative act as such, provided the prosecution were “founded upon a narrowly drawn statute passed by Con-, gress in the exercise of its legislative power to regulate the conduct of its members.” Johnson, supra, at 185. United States v. Brewster, 408 U. S., at 529 n. 18. We see no occasion to resolve that important question. We hold only that § 201 does not amount to a congressional waiver of the protection of the Clause for individual Members.
We recognize that an argument can be made from precedent and history that Congress, as a body, should not be free to strip individual Members of the protection guaranteed by the Clause from being “questioned” by the Executive in the courts. The controversy over the Alien and Sedition Acts reminds us how one political party in control of both the Legislative and the Executive Branches sought to use the courts to destroy political opponents.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts noted in Coffin that “the privilege secured ... is not so much the privilege of the house as an organized body, as of each individual member composing it, who is entitled to this privilege, even against the declared will of the house.” 4 Mass., at 27 (emphasis added). In a similar vein in Brewster we stated:
“The immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit' of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators.” 408 U. S., at 507 (emphasis added).
See also id., at 524. We perceive no reason to undertake, in this case, consideration of the Clause in terms of separating the Members’ rights from the rights of the body.
Assuming, arguendo, that the Congress could constitutionally waive the protection of the Clause for individual Members, such waiver could be shown only by an explicit and unequivocal expression. There is no evidence of such a waiver in the language or the legislative history of § 201 or any of its predecessors.
We conclude that there was neither individual nor institutional waiver and that the evidentiary barriers erected by the Speech or Debate Clause must stand. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Speech or Debate Clause provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [the Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Art. I, § 6.
This case was argued together with No. 78-546, Helstoski v. Meanor, post, p. 500, which involves the question of whether mandamus is an appropriate means of challenging the validity of an indictment on the ground that it violates the Speech or Debate Clause.
That Helstoski may not have had the extent of his privilege clearly in mind is indicated by the following exchange between him and an Assistant United States Attorney during Helstoski’s ninth appearance before a grand jury:
“A. [Helstoski] I stand on my Constitutional privilege regarding the Fifth Amendment.
“Q. And that privilege is against self incrimination?
“A. Whatever the Fifth Amendment is.”
The District Court found that “Helstoski was aware of the Speech or Debate Clause at the time he made his first grand jury appearance. He had recently concluded litigation involving his franking privilege in which he had relied upon the Speech or Debate Clause. Schiaffo v. Helstoski, 350 F. Supp. 1076 (D. N. J. 1972), rev’d in part, aff’d in part and remanded, 492 F. 2d 413 (3d Cir. 1974). In that litigation, Helstoski was represented by the same attorney who represented him throughout his grand jury appearances.”
He offered this explanation to an Assistant United States Attorney:
“A. [Helstoski] Do you want to get into the Constitutional question of whether or not you could serve a member of Congress while Congress is in session?
“You know very well that can’t be done .... “Q. Congressman, you’ve used tbe term ‘illegal subpoena.’ Who told you it was illegal?
“A. That’s my own judgment based on the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives.”
We agree with the Court of Appeals that 18 U. S. C. § 3731 authorized the Government to appeal the District Court order restricting the evidence that could be used at trial. All of the requisites of § 3731 were met. There was an order of a District Court excluding evidence; a United States Attorney filed the proper certification; and the appeal was taken within 30 days. In United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 337 (1975), we concluded that the purpose of the section was “to remove all statutory barriers to Government appeals and to allow appeals whenever the Constitution would permit.” See also United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 84-85 (1978); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1768, p. 21 (1970); S. Rep. No. 91-1296, pp. 2-3 (1970); 116 Cong. Rec. 35659 (1970) (remarks of Sen. Hruska). There are no constitutional barriers to this appeal, and we conclude that the appeal was authorized by § 3731.
Mr. Justice SteveNS suggests that our holding is broader than the Speech or Debate Clause requires. In his view, “it is illogical to adopt rules of evidence that will allow a Member of Congress effectively to immunize himself from conviction [for bribery] simply by inserting references to past legislative acts in all communications, thus rendering all such evidence inadmissible.” Post, at 498. Nothing in our opinion, by any conceivable reading, prohibits excising references to legislative acts, so that the remainder of the evidence would be admissible. This is a familiar process in the admission of documentary evidence. Of course, a Member can use the Speech or Debate Clause as a shield against prosecution by the Executive Branch, but only for utterances within the scope of legislative acts as defined in our holdings. That is the clear purpose of the Clause. The Clause is also a shield for libel, and beyond doubt it “has enabled reckless men to slander and even destroy others with impunity, but that was the conscious choice of the Framers.” United States v. Brewster, 408 U. S. 501, 516 (1972). Nothing in our holding today, however, immunizes a Member from punishment by the House or the Senate by disciplinary action including expulsion from the Member’s seat.
Section 201 was enacted in 1962. Pub. L. 87-849, 76 Stat. 1119. It replaced a section that had remained unchanged since its original enactment in 1862. Ch. 180, 12 Stat. 577. See Rev. Stat. § 1781; 18 U. S. C. §205 (1958 ed.). The debates on the 1862 Act reveal no discussion of the speech or debate privilege. See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 2d Sess., 3260 (1862). As explained in the House Report accompanying the 1962 Act, the purpose of the Act was “to render uniform the law describing a bribe and prescribing the intent or purpose which makes its transfer unlawful.” H. R. Rep. No. 748, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 15 (1961). The Senate Report expanded the explanation and said that a purpose of the Act was the “substitution of a single comprehensive section of the Criminal Code for a number of existing statutes concerned with bribery. This consolidation would make no significant changes of substance and, more particularly, would not restrict the broad scope of the present bribery statutes as construed by the courts.” S. Rep. No. 2213, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1962).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether attorney’s fees incurred by a plaintiff subsequent to an offer of settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 must be paid by the defendant under 42 U. S. C. § 1988, when the plaintiff recovers a judgment less than the offer.
I
Petitioners, three police officers, in answering a call on a domestic disturbance, shot and killed respondent’s adult son. Respondent, in his own behalf and as administrator of his son’s estate, filed suit against the officers in the United States District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and state tort law.
Prior to trial, petitioners made a timely offer of settlement “for a sum, including costs now accrued and attorney’s fees, of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($100,000) DOLLARS.” Respondent did not accept the offer. The case went to trial and respondent was awarded $5,000 on the state-law “wrongful death” claim, $52,000 for the § 1988 violation, and $3,000 in punitive damages.
Respondent filed a request for $171,692.47 in costs, including attorney’s fees. This amount included costs incurred after the settlement offer. Petitioners opposed the claim for postoffer costs, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, which shifts to the plaintiff all “costs” incurred subsequent to an offer of judgment not exceeded by the ultimate recovery at trial. Petitioners argued that attorney’s fees are part of the “costs” covered by Rule 68. The District Court agreed with petitioners and declined to award respondent “costs, including attorney’s fees, incurred after the offer of judgment.” 547 F. Supp. 542, 547 (ND Ill. 1982). The parties subsequently agreed that $32,000 fairly represented the allowable costs, including attorney’s fees, accrued prior to petitioners’ offer of settlement. Respondent appealed the denial of postoffer costs.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 720 F. 2d 474 (CA71983). The court rejected what it termed the “rather mechanical linking up of Rule 68 and section 1988.” Id., at 478. It stated that the District Court’s reading of Rule 68 and § 1988, while “in a sense logical,” would put civil rights plaintiffs and counsel in a “predicament” that “cuts against the grain of section 1988.” Id., at 478, 479. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, the court reasoned, would be forced to “think very hard” before rejecting even an inadequate offer, and would be deterred from bringing good-faith actions because of the prospect of losing the right to attorney’s fees if a settlement offer more favorable than the ultimate recovery were rejected. Id., at 478-479. The court concluded that “[t]he legislators who enacted section 1988 would not have wanted its effectiveness blunted because of a little known rule of court.” Id., at 479.
We granted certiorari, 466 U. S. 949 (1984). We reverse.
rH ► — I
Rule 68 provides that if a timely pretrial offer of settlement is not accepted and “the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer. ” (Emphasis added.) The plain purpose of Rule 68 is to encourage settlement and avoid litigation. Advisory Committee Note on Rules of Civil Procedure, Report of Proposed Amendments, 5 F. R. D. 433, 483, n. 1 (1946), 28 U. S. C. App., p. 637; Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U. S. 346, 352 (1981). The Rule prompts both parties to a suit to evaluate the risks and costs of litigation, and to balance them against the likelihood of success upon trial on the merits. This case requires us to decide whether the offer in this case was a proper one under Rule 68, and whether the term “costs” as used in Rule 68 includes attorney’s fees awardable under 42 U. S. C. § 1988.
A
The first question we address is whether petitioners’ offer was valid under Rule 68. Respondent contends that the offer was invalid because it lumped petitioners’ proposal for damages with their proposal for costs. Respondent argues that Rule 68 requires that an offer must separately recite the amount that the defendant is offering in settlement of the substantive claim and the amount he is offering to cover accrued costs. Only if the offer is bifurcated, he contends, so that it is clear how much the defendant is offering for the substantive claim, can a plaintiff possibly assess whether it would be wise to accept the offer. He apparently bases this argument on the language of the Rule providing that the defendant “may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against him for the money or property or to the effect specified in his offer, with costs then accrued” (emphasis added).
The Court of Appeals rejected respondent’s claim, holding that “an offer of the money or property or to the specified effect is, by force of the rule itself, ‘with’ — that is, plus 'costs then accrued,’ whatever the amount of those costs is.” 720 F. 2d, at 476. We, too, reject respondent’s argument. We do not read Rule 68 to require that a defendant’s offer itemize the respective amounts being tendered for settlement of the underlying substantive claim and for costs.
The critical feature of this portion of the Rule is that the offer be one that allows judgment to be taken against the defendant for both the damages caused by the challenged conduct and the costs then accrued. In other words, the drafters’ concern was not so much with the particular components of offers, but with the judgments to be allowed against defendants. If an offer recites that costs are included or specifies an amount for costs, and the plaintiff accepts the offer, the judgment will necessarily include costs; if the offer does not state that costs are included and an amount for costs is not specified, the court will be obliged by the terms of the Rule to include in its judgment an additional amount which in its discretion, see Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, supra, at 362, 365 (Powell, J., concurring), it determines to be sufficient to cover the costs. In either case, however, the offer has allowed judgment to be entered against the defendant both for damages caused by the challenged conduct and for costs. Accordingly, it is immaterial whether the offer recites that costs are included, whether it specifies the amount the defendant is allowing for costs, or, for that matter, whether it refers to costs at all. As long as the offer does not implicitly or explicitly provide that the judgment not include costs, a timely offer will be valid.
This construction of the Rule best furthers the objective of the Rule, which is to encourage settlements. If defendants are not allowed to make lump-sum offers that would, if accepted, represent their total liability, they would understandably be reluctant to make settlement offers. As the Court of Appeals observed, “many a defendant would be unwilling to make a binding settlement offer on terms that left it exposed to liability for attorney’s fees in whatever amount the court might fix on motion of the plaintiff.” 720 F. 2d, at 477.
Contrary to respondent’s suggestion, reading the Rule in this way does not frustrate plaintiffs’ efforts to determine whether defendants’ offers are adequate. At the time an offer is made, the plaintiff knows the amount in damages caused by the challenged conduct. The plaintiff also knows, or can ascertain, the costs then accrued. A reasonable determination whether to accept the offer can be made by simply adding these two figures and comparing the sum to the amount offered. Respondent is troubled that a plaintiff will not know whether the offer on the substantive claim would be exceeded at trial, but this is so whenever an offer of settlement is made. In any event, requiring itemization of damages separate from costs would not in any way help plaintiffs know in advance whether the judgment at trial will exceed a defendant’s offer.
Curiously, respondent also maintains that petitioners’ settlement offer did not exceed the judgment obtained by respondent. In this regard, respondent notes that the $100,000 offer is not as great as the sum of the $60,000 in damages, $32,000 in preoffer costs, and $139,692.47 in claimed postoffer costs. This argument assumes, however, that postoffer costs should be included in the comparison. The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that postoffer costs merely offset part of the expense of continuing the litigation to trial, and should not be included in the calculus. Id,., at 476.
B
The second question we address is whether the term “costs” in Rule 68 includes attorney’s fees awardable under 42 U. S. C. § 1988. By the time the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted in 1938, federal statutes had authorized and defined awards of costs to prevailing parties for more than 85 years. See Act of Feb. 26, 1853, 10 Stat. 161; see generally Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240 (1975). Unlike in England, such “costs” generally had not included attorney’s fees; under the “American Rule,” each party had been required to bear its own attorney’s fees. The “American Rule” as applied in federal courts, however, had become subject to certain exceptions by the late 1930’s. Some of these exceptions had evolved as a product of the “inherent power in the courts to allow attorney’s fees in particular situations.” Alyeska, supra, at 259. But most of the exceptions were found in federal statutes that directed courts to award attorney’s fees as part of costs in particular cases. 421 U. S., at 260-262.
Section 407 of the Communications Act of 1934, for example, provided in relevant part that, “[i]f the petitioner shall finally prevail, he shall be allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee, to be taxed and collected as a part of the costs of the suit.” 47 U. S. C. §407. There was identical language in § 3(p) of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 153(p) (1934 ed.). Section 40 of the Copyright Act of 1909, 17 U. S. C. §40 (1934 ed.), allowed a court to “award to the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” And other statutes contained similar provisions that included attorney’s fees as part of awardable “costs.” See, e. g., the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 15 (1934 ed.); the Securities Act of 1933,15 U. S. C. §77k(e) (1934 ed.); the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. §§78i(e), 78r(a) (1934 ed.).
The authors of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 were fully aware of these exceptions to the American Rule. The Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 54(d), 28 U. S. C. App., p. 621, contains an extensive list of the federal statutes which allowed for costs in particular cases; of the 35 “statutes as to costs” set forth in the final paragraph of the Note, no fewer than 11 allowed for attorney’s fees as part of costs. Against this background of varying definitions of “costs,” the drafters of Rule 68 did not define the term; nor is there any explanation whatever as to its intended meaning in the history of the Rule.
In this setting, given the importance of “costs” to the Rule, it is very unlikely that this omission was mere oversight; on the contrary, the most reasonable inference is that the term “costs” in Rule 68 was intended to refer to all costs properly awardable under the relevant substantive statute or other authority. In other words, all costs properly awardable in an action are to be considered within the scope of Rule 68 “costs.” Thus, absent congressional expressions to the contrary, where the underlying statute defines “costs” to include attorney’s fees, we are satisfied such fees are to be included as costs for purposes of Rule 68. See, e. g., Fulps v. Springfield, Tenn., 715 F. 2d 1088, 1091-1095 (CA6 1983); Waters v. Heublein, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 110, 113-117 (ND Cal. 1979); Scheriff v. Beck, 452 F. Supp. 1254, 1259-1260 (Colo. 1978). See also Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U. S., at 362-363 (Powell, J., concurring).
Here, respondent sued under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1988, a prevailing party in a § 1983 action may be awarded attorney’s fees “as part of the costs.” Since Congress expressly included attorney’s fees as “costs” available to a plaintiff in a § 1983 suit, such fees are subject to the cost-shifting provision of Rule 68. This “plain meaning” interpretation of the interplay between Rule 68 and § 1988 is the only construction that gives meaning to each word in both Rule 68 and § 1988.
Unlike the Court of Appeals, we do not believe that this “plain meaning” construction of the statute and the Rule will frustrate Congress’ objective in § 1988 of ensuring that civil rights plaintiffs obtain “‘effective access to the judicial process.’” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424, 429 (1983), quoting H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 1 (1976). Merely subjecting civil rights plaintiffs to the settlement provision of Rule 68 does not curtail their access to the courts, or significantly deter them from bringing suit. Application of Rule 68 will serve as a disincentive for the plaintiff’s attorney to continue litigation after the defendant makes a settlement offer. There is no evidence, however, that Congress, in considering § 1988, had any thought that civil rights claims were to be on any different footing from other civil claims insofar as settlement is concerned. Indeed, Congress made clear its concern that civil rights plaintiffs not be penalized for “helping to lessen docket congestion” by settling their cases out of court. See H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 7.
Moreover, Rule 68’s policy of encouraging settlements is neutral, favoring neither plaintiffs nor defendants; it expresses a clear policy of favoring settlement of all lawsuits. Civil rights plaintiffs — along with other plaintiffs — who reject an offer more favorable than what is thereafter recovered at trial will not recover attorney’s fees for services performed after the offer is rejected. But, since the Rule is neutral, many civil rights plaintiffs will benefit from the offers of settlement encouraged by Rule 68. Some plaintiffs will receive compensation in settlement where, on trial, they might not have recovered, or would have recovered less than what was offered. And, even for those who would prevail at trial, settlement will provide them with compensation at an earlier date without the burdens, stress, and time of litigation. In short, settlements rather than litigation will serve the interests of plaintiffs as well as defendants.
To be sure, application of Rule 68 will require plaintiffs to “think very hard” about whether continued litigation is worthwhile; that is precisely what Rule 68 contemplates. This effect of Rule 68, however, is in no sense inconsistent with the congressional policies underlying § 1983 and § 1988. Section 1988 authorizes courts to award only “reasonable” attorney’s fees to prevailing parties. In Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, we held that “the most critical factor” in determining a reasonable fee “is the degree of success obtained.” Id., at 436. We specifically noted that prevailing at trial “may say little about whether the expenditure of counsel’s time was reasonable in relation to the success achieved.” Ibid. In a case where a rejected settlement offer exceeds the ultimate recovery, the plaintiff — although technically the prevailing party — has not received any monetary benefits from the postoffer services of his attorney. This case presents a good example: the $139,692 in postoffer legal services resulted in a recovery $8,000 less than petitioners’ settlement offer. Given Congress’ focus on the success achieved, we are not persuaded that shifting the postoffer costs to respondent in these circumstances would in any sense thwart its intent under § 1988.
Rather than “cutting against the grain” of § 1988, as the Court of Appeals held, we are convinced that applying Rule 68 in the context of a § 1983 action is consistent with the policies and objectives of § 1988. Section 1988 encourages plaintiffs to bring meritorious civil rights suits; Rule 68 simply encourages settlements. There is nothing incompatible in these two objectives.
Ill
Congress, of course, was well aware of Rule 68 when it enacted § 1988, and included attorney’s fees as part of recoverable costs. The plain language of Rule 68 and § 1988 subjects such fees to the cost-shifting provision of Rule 68. Nothing revealed in our review of the policies underlying § 1988 constitutes “the necessary clear expression of congressional intent” required “to exempt. . . [the] statute from the operation of” Rule 68. Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 700 (1979). We hold that petitioners are not liable for costs of $139,692 incurred by respondent after petitioners’ offer of settlement.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
The District Court refused to shift to respondent any costs accrued by petitioners. Petitioners do not contest that ruling.
Respondent suggests that Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U. S. 752 (1980), requires a different result. Roadway Express, however, is not relevant to our decision today. In Roadway, attorney’s fees were sought as part of costs under 28 U. S. C. § 1927, which allows the imposition of costs as a penalty on attorneys for vexatiously multiplying litigation. We held in Roadway Express that § 1927 came with its own statutory definition of costs, and that this definition did not include attorney’s fees. The critical distinction here is that Rule 68 does not come with a definition of costs; rather, it incorporates the definition of costs that otherwise applies to the ease.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
F
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether an employer charged with discrimination in hiring can toll the continuing accrual of backpay liability under § 706(g) of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(g), simply by unconditionally offering the claimant the job previously denied, or whether the employer also must offer seniority retroactive to the date of the alleged discrimination.
The question has considerable practical significance because of the lengthy delays that too often attend Title VII litigation. The extended time it frequently takes to obtain satisfaction in the courts may force a discrimination claimant to suffer through years of underemployment or unemployment before being awarded the job the claimant deserves. Court delays, of course, affect all litigants. But for the victim of job discrimination, delay is especially unfortunate. The claimant cannot afford to stand aside while the wheels of justice grind slowly toward the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit. The claimant needs work that will feed a family and restore self-respect. A job is needed — now. In this case, therefore, we must determine how best to fashion the remedies available under Title VII to fulfill this basic need.
I — I
A
In June and July 1971, Judy Gaddis, Rebecca Starr, and Zettie Smith applied at a Ford Motor Co. (Ford) parts warehouse located in Charlotte, N. C., for jobs as “picker-packers,” “picking” ordered parts from storage, and “packing” them for shipment. At the time, no woman had ever worked in that capacity at the Ford warehouse. All three women were qualified for the positions: Gaddis and Starr recently had been laid off from equivalent jobs at a nearby General Motors (GM) warehouse, and Smith had comparable prior experience. Smith applied before any of the openings were filled, and Gaddis and Starr applied while at least two positions remained available. Ford, however, filled the three vacant positions with men, and Gaddis filed a charge with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that Ford had discriminated against her because of her sex.
In January 1973, GM recalled Gaddis and Starr to their former positions at its warehouse. The following July, while they were still working at GM, a single vacancy opened up at Ford. Ford offered the job to Gaddis, without seniority retroactive to her 1971 application. Ford’s offer, however, did not require Gaddis to abandon or compromise her Title VII claim against Ford. Gaddis did not accept the job, in part because she did not want to be the only woman working at the warehouse, and in part because she did not want to lose the seniority she had earned at GM. Ford then made the same unconditional offer to Starr, who declined for the same reasons. Gaddis and Starr continued to work at the GM warehouse, but in 1974 the warehouse was closed and they were laid off. They then unsuccessfully sought new employment until September 1975, when they entered a Government training program for the unemployed.
Smith applied again for work at Ford in 1973, but was never hired. She worked elsewhere, though at lower wages than she would have earned at Ford, during much of the time between 1971 and the District Court’s decision in 1977.
In contrast to Gaddis’, Starr’s, and Smith’s difficulties, at least two of the three men hired by Ford in 1971 were still working at the warehouse at the time of the trial in 1977.
B
In July 1975, the EEOC sued Ford in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, alleging that Ford had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), by refusing to hire women at the Charlotte warehouse. The Commission sought injunctive relief and backpay for the victims.
After trial, the District Court found that Ford had discriminated against the three women on the basis of their sex and awarded them backpay in an amount equal to “the difference between the amount they would have earned had they been hired in August 1971, and the amounts actually earned or reasonably earnable by them” between that date and the date of the court’s order. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-170. The District Court rejected Ford’s contention that Gaddis and Starr were not entitled to backpay accruing after the dates on which they declined Ford’s offer of employment. Id., at A-170 to A-171.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s finding of unlawful discrimination, as well as the court’s award to Gaddis and Starr of backpay that had accrued after July 1973, when the women rejected Ford’s unconditional job offer. 645 F. 2d 183 (1981). The court suggested that, had Ford promised retroactive seniority with its job offer, the offer would have cut off Ford’s backpay liability. The court concluded, however, that without the promise of retroactive seniority, Ford’s 1973 offer was “incomplete and unacceptable.” Id., at 193.
Ford then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, contending, inter alia, that its unconditional job offer to Gaddis and Starr should have cut off the further accrual of backpay liability. We granted the writ. 454 U. S. 1030 (1981).
II
Section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 261, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(g), governs the award of backpay in Title VII cases. In pertinent part, § 706(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 may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmaaction as may be appropriate, which may include, is not limited to,... hiring of employees, with or without back pay,... or any other equitable relief as court deems appropriate.... Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the per- or persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable” (emphasis added).
Under § 706(g), then, “backpay is not an automatic or mandatory remedy;... it is one which the courts ‘may’ invoke” in the exercise of their sound “discretion [which] is equitable in nature.” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 415, 416 (1975). Nonetheless, while “the power to award backpay is a discretionary power,” id., at 447 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment), a “court must exercise this power ‘in light of the large objectives of the Act,’ ” and, in doing so, must be guided by “meaningful standards” enforced by “thorough appellate review.” Id., at 416 (opinion of the Court) (citations omitted). Moreover, as we emphasized in Albemarle Paper, in Title VII cases
“such discretionary choices are not left to a court’s ‘inclination, but to its judgment; and its judgment is to be guided by sound legal principles.’ United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C. J.)....
“It is true that ‘[e]quity eschews mechanical rules... [and] depends on flexibility.’ Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392, 396 (1946). But when Congress invokes the Chancellor’s conscience to further transcendent legislative purposes, what is required is the principled application of standards consistent with those purposes and not ‘equity [which] varies like the Chancellor’s foot.’ Important national goals would be frustrated by a regime of discretion that ‘produce[d] different results for breaches of duty in situations that cannot be differentiated in policy.’ Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U. S. 375, 405 (1970).” Id., at 416-417 (footnote omitted).
In this case, Ford and the EEOC offer competing standards to govern backpay liability. Ford argues that if an employer unconditionally offers a claimant the job for which he previously applied, the claimant’s rejection of that offer should toll the continuing accrual of backpay liability. The EEOC, on the other hand, defends the lower court’s rule, contending that backpay liability should be tolled only by the rejection of an offer that includes seniority retroactive to the date on which the alleged discrimination occurred. Our task is to determine which of these standards better coincides with the “large objectives” of Title VII.
Ill
The “primary objective” of Title VII is to bring employment discrimination to an end, Albemarle Paper, 422 U. S., at 417, by “ ‘achieving] equality of employment opportunities and removing] barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group... over other employees.’” Ibid, (quoting Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 429-430 (1971)). See also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 800 (1973). “[T]he preferred means for achieving” this goal is through “[c]ooperation and voluntary compliance.” Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 44 (1974).
To accomplish this objective, the legal rules fashioned to implement Title VII should be designed, consistent with other Title VII policies, to encourage Title VII defendants promptly to make curative, unconditional job offers to Title VII claimants, thereby bringing defendants into “voluntary compliance” and ending discrimination far more quickly than could litigation proceeding at its often ponderous pace. Delays in litigation unfortunately are now commonplace, forcing the victims of discrimination to suffer years of underemployment or unemployment before they can obtain a court order awarding them the jobs unlawfully denied them. In a better world, perhaps, lawsuits brought under Title VII would speed to judgment so quickly that the effects of legal rules on the behavior of the parties during the pendency of litigation would not be as important a consideration. We do not now live in such a world, however, as this case illustrates.
The rule tolling the further accrual of backpay liability if the defendant offers the claimant the job originally sought well serves the objective of ending discrimination through voluntary compliance, for it gives an employer a strong incentive to hire the Title VII claimant. While the claimant may be no more attractive than the other job applicants, a job offer to the claimant will free the employer of the threat of liability for further backpay damages. Since paying backpay damages is like paying an extra worker who never came to work, Ford’s proposed rule gives the Title VII claimant a decided edge over other competitors for the job he seeks.
The rule adopted by the court below, on the other hand, fails to provide the same incentive, because it makes hiring the Title VII claimant more costly than hiring one of the other applicants for the same job. To give the claimant retroactive seniority before an adjudication of liability, the employer must be willing to pay the additional costs of the fringe benefits that come with the seniority that newly hired workers usually do not receive. More important, the employer must also be prepared to cope with the deterioration in morale, labor unrest, and reduced productivity that may be engendered by inserting the claimant into the seniority ladder over the heads of the incumbents who have earned their places through their work on the job. In many cases, moreover, disruption of the existing seniority system will violate a collective-bargaining agreement, with all that such a violation entails for the employer’s labor relations. Under the rule adopted by the court below, the employer must be willing to accept all these additional costs if he hopes to toll his backpay liability by offering the job to the claimant. As a result, the employer will be less, rather than more, likely to hire the claimant.
In sum, the Court of Appeals’ rule provides no incentive to employers to hire Title VII claimants. The rule advocated by Ford, by contrast, powerfully motivates employers to put Title VII claimants to work, thus ending ongoing discrimination as promptly as possible.
IV
Title VIPs primary goal, of course, is to end discrimination; the victims of job discrimination want jobs, not lawsuits. But when unlawful discrimination does occur, Title VIPs secondary, fallback purpose is to compensate the victims for their injuries. To this end, § 706(g) aims “ ‘to make the victims of unlawful discrimination whole’ ” by restoring them, “ ‘so far as possible... to a position where they would have been were it not for the unlawful discrimination.’ ” Albemarle Paper, 422 U. S., at 421 (quoting 118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972) (remarks of Sen. Williams)). We now turn to consider whether the rule urged by Ford not only better serves the goal of ending discrimination, but also properly compensates injured Title VII claimants.
A
If Gaddis and Starr had rejected an unconditional offer from Ford before they were recalled to their jobs at GM, tolling Ford’s backpay liability from the time of Ford’s offer plainly would be consistent with providing Gaddis and Starr full compensation for their injuries. An unemployed or underemployed claimant, like all other Title VII claimants, is subject to the statutory duty to minimize damages set out in § 706(g). This duty, rooted in an ancient principle of law, requires the claimant to use reasonable diligence in finding other suitable employment. Although the unemployed or underemployed claimant need not go into another line of work, accept a demotion, or take a demeaning position, he forfeits his right to backpay if he refuses a job substantially equivalent to the one he was denied. Consequently, an employer charged with unlawful discrimination often can toll the accrual of backpay liability by unconditionally offering the claimant the job he sought, and thereby providing him with an opportunity to minimize damages.
An employer’s unconditional offer of the job originally sought to an unemployed or underemployed claimant, moreover, need not be supplemented by an offer of retroactive seniority to be effective, lest a defendant’s offer be irrationally disfavored relative to other employers’ offers of substantially similar jobs. The claimant, after all, plainly would be required to minimize his damages by accepting another employer’s offer even though it failed to grant the benefits of seniority not yet earned. Of course, if the claimant fulfills the requirement that he minimize damages by accepting the defendant’s unconditional offer, he remains entitled to full compensation if he wins his case. A court may grant him backpay accrued prior to the effective date of the offer, retroactive seniority, and compensation for any losses suffered as a result of his lesser seniority before the court’s judgment.
In short, the unemployed or underemployed claimant’s statutory obligation to minimize damages requires him to accept an unconditional offer of the job originally sought, even without retroactive seniority. Acceptance of the offer preserves, rather than jeopardizes, the claimant’s right to be made whole; in the case of an unemployed or underemployed claimant, Ford’s suggested rule merely embodies the existing requirement of § 706(g) that the claimant minimize damages, without affecting his right to compensation.
B
Ford’s proposed rule also is consistent with the policy of full compensation when the claimant has had the good fortune to find a more attractive job than the defendant’s, because the availability of the better job terminates the ongoing ill effects of the defendant’s refusal to hire the claimant. For example, if Gaddis and Starr considered their jobs at GM to be so far superior to the jobs originally offered by Ford that, even if Ford had hired them at the outset, they would have left Ford’s employ to take the new work, continuing to hold Ford responsible for backpay after Gaddis and Starr lost their GM jobs would be to require, in effect, that Ford insure them against the risks of unemployment in a new and independent undertaking. Such a rule would not merely restore Gaddis and Starr to the “‘position where they would have been were it not for the unlawful discrimination,’ ” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S., at 421 (citation omitted); it would catapult them into a better position than they would have enjoyed in the absence of discrimination.
Likewise, even if Gaddis and Starr considered their GM jobs only somewhat better or even substantially equivalent to the positions they would have held at Ford had Ford hired them initially, their rejection of Ford’s unconditional offer could be taken to mean that they believed that the lingering ill effects of Ford’s prior refusal to hire them had been extinguished by later developments. If, for example, they thought that the Ford and GM jobs were identical in every respect, offering identical pay, identical conditions of employment, and identical risks of layoff, Gaddis and Starr would have been utterly indifferent as to which job they had— Ford’s or GM’s. Assuming that they could work at only one job at a time, the ongoing economic ill effects caused by Ford’s prior refusal to hire them would have ceased when they found the identical jobs at GM, and they would have had no reason to accept Ford’s offers. As in the case of a claimant who lands a better job, therefore, requiring a defendant to provide what amounts to a form of unemployment insurance to claimants, after they have found identical jobs and refused the defendant’s unconditional job offer, would be, absent special circumstances, to grant them something more than compensation for their injuries.
In both of these situations, the claimant has the power to accept the defendant’s offer and abandon the superior or substantially equivalent replacement job. As in the case of an unemployed or underemployed claimant, under the rule advocated by Ford acceptance of the defendant’s unconditional offer would preserve fully the ultimately victorious claimant’s right to full redress for the effects of discrimination. The claimant who chooses not to follow this path does so, then, not because it provides inadequate compensation, but because the value of the replacement job outweighs the value of the defendant’s job supplemented by the prospect of full court-ordered compensation. In other words, the victim of discrimination who finds a better or substantially equivalent job no longer suffers ongoing injury stemming from the unlawful discrimination.
C
Thus, the rule advocated by Ford rests comfortably both on the statutory requirement that a Title VII claimant must minimize damages and on the fact that a claimant is no longer incurring additional injury if he has been able to find other suitable work that, all things considered, is at least as attractive as the defendant’s. For this reason, in almost all circumstances the rule is fully consistent with Title VII’s object of making injured claimants whole.
The sole question that can be raised regarding whether the rule adequately compensates claimants arises in that narrow category of eases in which the claimant believes his replacement job to be superior to the defendant’s job without seniority, but inferior to the defendant’s job with the benefits of seniority. In the present case, for example, it is possible that Gaddis and Starr considered their GM jobs more attractive than the jobs offered by Ford, but less satisfactory than the positions they would have held at Ford if Ford had hired them initially. If so, they were confronted with two options. They could have accepted Ford’s unconditional offer, preserving their right to full compensation if they prevailed on their Title VII claims, but forfeiting their favorable positions at GM. Alternatively, they could have kept their jobs at GM, retaining the possibility of continued employment there, but, under the operation of the rule advocated here by Ford, losing the right to claim further backpay from Ford after the date of Ford’s offer. The court below concluded that under these circumstances Ford’s rule would present Gaddis and Starr with an “intolerable choice,” 645 F. 2d, at 192, depriving them of the opportunity to receive full compensation.
We agree that Gaddis and Starr had to choose between two alternatives. We do not agree, however, that their opportunity to choose deprived them of compensation. After all, they had the option of accepting Ford’s unconditional offer and retaining the right to seek full compensation at trial, which would comport fully with Title VII’s goal of making discrimination victims whole. Under the rule advocated by Ford, if Gaddis and Starr chose the option of remaining at their GM jobs rather than accept Ford’s offer, it was because they thought that the GM jobs, plus their claims to backpay accrued prior to Ford’s offer, were more valuable to them than the jobs they originally sought from Ford, plus the right to seek frill compensation from the court. It is hard to see how Gaddis and Starr could have been deprived of adequate compensation because they chose to venture upon a path that seemed to them more attractive than the Ford job plus the right to seek full compensation in court.
If the choice presented to Gaddis and Starr was difficult, it was only because it required them to assess their likelihood of prevailing at trial. But surely it cannot be contended for this reason alone that they were deprived of their right to adequate compensation. It is a fact of life that litigation is risky and that a plaintiff with a claim to compensation for his losses must consider the possibility that the claim might be lost at trial, either wrongly, because of litigation error, or rightly, because the defendant was innocent. Ford’s rule merely requires the Title VII claimant to decide whether to take the job offered by the defendant, retaining his rights to an award by the court of backpay accrued prior to the effective date of the offer, and any court-ordered retroactive seniority plus compensation for any losses suffered as a result of his lesser seniority before the court’s judgment, or, instead, whether to accept a more attractive job from another employer and the limitation of the claim for backpay to the damages that have already accrued. The rule urged by the EEOC and adopted by the court below, by contrast, would have the perverse result of requiring the employer in effect to insure the claimant against the risk that the employer might win at trial.
Therefore, we conclude that, when a claimant rejects the offer of the job he originally sought, as supplemented by a right to full court-ordered compensation, his choice can be taken as establishing that he considers the ongoing injury he has suffered at the hands of the defendant to have been ended by the availability of better opportunities elsewhere. For this reason, we find that, absent special circumstances, the simple rule that the ongoing accrual of backpay liability is tolled when a Title VII claimant rejects the job he originally sought comports with Title VIPs policy of making discrimination victims whole.
V
Although Title VII remedies depend primarily upon the objectives discussed above, the statute also permits us to consider the rights of “innocent third parties.” City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 723 (1978). See also Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 371-376 (1977). The lower court’s rule places a particularly onerous burden on the innocent employees of an employer charged with discrimination. Under the court’s rule, an employer may cap backpay liability only by forcing his incumbent employees to yield seniority to a person who has not proved, and may never prove, unlawful discrimination. As we have acknowledged on numerous occasions, seniority plays a central role in allocating benefits and burdens among employees. In light of the “‘overriding importance’ ” of these rights, American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U. S. 63, 76 (1982) (quoting Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335, 346 (1964)), we should be wary of any rule that encourages job offers that compel innocent workers to sacrifice their seniority to a person who has only claimed, but not yet proved, unlawful discrimination.
The sacrifice demanded by the lower court’s rule, moreover, leaves the displaced workers without any remedy against claimants who fail to establish their claims. If, for example, layoffs occur while the Title VII suit is pending, an employer may have to furlough an innocent worker indefinitely while retaining a claimant who was given retroactive seniority. If the claimant subsequently fails to prove unlawful discrimination, the worker unfairly relegated to the unemployment lines has no redress for the wrong done him. We do not believe that “‘the large objectives’” of Title VII, Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S., at 416 (citation omitted), require innocent employees to carry such a heavy burden.
VI
In conclusion, we find that the rule adopted by the court below disserves Title VII’s primary goal of getting the victims of employment discrimination into the jobs they deserve as quickly as possible. The rule, moreover, threatens the interests of other, innocent employees by disrupting the established seniority hierarchy, with the attendant risk that an innocent employee will be unfairly laid off or disadvantaged because a Title VII claimant unfairly has been granted seniority.
On the other hand, the rule that a Title VII claimant’s rejection of a defendant’s job offer normally ends the defendant’s ongoing responsibility for backpay suffers neither of these disadvantages, while nevertheless adequately satisfying Title VII’s compensation goals. Most important, it also serves as a potent force on behalf of Title VII’s objective of bringing discrimination to an end more quickly than is often possible through litigation. For these reasons we hold that, absent special circumstances, the rejection of an employer’s unconditional job offer ends the accrual of potential backpay liability. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The dissent asserts that by so “fram[ing] the question presented” we have “simply and completely misstate[d] the issue.” Post, at 242. Apparently, neither party agrees with the dissent. The petitioner summarizes the question presented as “whether back pay due an employment discrimination claimant continues to accrue after the claimant has rejected an unconditional job offer that does not include retroactive seniority or back pay.” Brief for Petitioner i. The respondent sums up the question presented as “[wjhether an employer who unlawfully refused to hire job applicants because they were women can terminate its liability for back pay by subsequently offering the applicants positions without seniority at a time when they had obtained, and accumulated seniority in, other jobs.” Brief for Respondent i.
To buttress the assertion that the Court has addressed a question not presented, the dissent claims that we have “misrea[d]” the Court of Appeals’ decision, “transform[ing] a narrow Court of Appeals ruling into a broad one, just so [we could] reverse and install a broad new rule of [our] own choosing,” post, at 249, n. 8, rather than attempt, as best we are able, to decide the particular case actually before us. Because we believe we have correctly and fairly framed the question, we decline the opportunity to address further this ad hominem argument.
The discriminatory refusals to hire involved in this case occurred 11 years ago.
When this case came to trial, Ford claimed that Gaddis and Starr applied after men had already been hired and that Smith had not applied at all. The District Court found to the contrary, however, and the Court of Appeals upheld the findings.
After Gaddis had filed her complaint, she and Starr continued to seek work at the Ford warehouse. In November 1972, Ford hired them and four other workers for six weeks to fill temporary jobs at the warehouse.
Although the EEOC suit involved additional issues and claimants, we are concerned here with only the part of the suit that involved Gaddis, Starr, and Smith.
Senior District Judge Walter E. Hoffman, sitting by designation, dissented from this portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision.
1n its petition Ford raised two other issues. First, Ford read the opinion of the Court of Appeals as suggesting that to toll backpay liability an employer must include with his job offer, not just retroactive seniority, but also an offer of already-accrued backpay. The Court of Appeals’ opinion did not expressly so hold, however, and before this Court the EEOC concedes that under Title VII such an offer of a lump-sum payment of backpay is not required to toll the continuing accrual of backpay liability. This issue thus is no longer contested by the parties.
The second issue is the only one involving Smith. Ford disputed the District Court’s finding that Ford discriminated against the three women, claiming that the court reached its conclusion because it erroneously allocated the burden of proof. We are persuaded, however, that the District Court’s findings were consistent with Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248 (1981).
In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), we set forth the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging discriminatory treatment. See also Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567 (1978), and Board of Trustees v. Sweeney, 439 U. S. 24 (1978). Despite these decisions, some confusion continued to exist. In Burdine we reiterated that after a plaintiff has proved a prima facie case of discrimination, “the burden shifts to the defendant ‘to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.’” 450 U. S., at 253 (citation omitted). The “ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.” Ibid, (citation omitted). It was then made clear that:
“The defendant need not persuade the Court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons.... It is sufficient if the defendant’s evidence raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the plaintiff.” Id., at 254-255 (footnote omitted).
As neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals cited Burdine (apparently because it had only recently been decided), we restate the foregoing principles. We conclude, however, on the basis of the specific findings of fact by the District Court, undisturbed by the Court of Appeals, that the plaintiffs in this case carried their burden of persuasion.
As Burdine commands, the District Court did not place the burden of persuasion on Ford. Instead, it began its discussion of liability by straightforwardly declaring that the EEOC “ha[d] established that Ford discriminated against Smith, Gaddis and Starr on the basis of their sex.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-167. The court supported this conclusion by pointing, not only to the EEOC’s proof of a prima facie case, but also to “its showing that Ford had never hired women into the warehouse until November, 1972, and that [its] procedures for hiring were vague and were based on highly subjective criteria.” Id., at A-167 to A-168. The court, moreover, entered findings of fact discrediting each of Ford’s proffered justifications for refusing to hire the women. Id., at A-155 to A-161. This progression of factual findings and legal conclusions indicates that the District Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ford’s justifications were “unworthy of credence,” 450 U. S., at 256, and that the company had discriminated on the basis of sex. These findings are fully consistent with Burdine.
As Ford points out, the Court of Appeals opinion contains some statements that are arguably inconsistent with Burdine. That court corrected any misimpression generated by these statements, however, with a discussion directly focusing on the burden-of-proof issue. 645 F. 2d 183, 189, n. 5 (CA4 1981). In light of this discussion, and because it is clear that the trier of fact properly allocated the burden of proof, we find no merit in Ford’s burden-of-proof argument.
Section 706(g) was “expressly modeled,” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 419, and n. 11 (1975), on the analogous remedial provision of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), § 10(c), 49 Stat. 454, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 160(c). Section 10(c) provides that, if an unfair labor practice has been, or is being, committed, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is empowered to “take such affirmative action, including reinstatement of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies” of the Act.
The principles developed under the NLRA generally guide, but do not bind, courts in tailoring remedies under Title VII. See, e. g., Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 366-367 (1977); Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 768-770 (1976); Albemarle Paper Co., supra, at 419, and n. 11. Therefore, throughout this opinion we refer to cases decided under the NLRA as well as under Title VII.
It should be clear that the contested backpay in this suit stems from the period following Ford’s offer, and during which Gaddis and Starr were unemployed, i. e., after the GM warehouse closed. Our decision today does not affect their right to claim backpay for the period before they rejected Ford’s offers.
For reasons of its own, the dissenting opinion reads the decision below narrowly and takes us to task for discerning the outlines of a “general rule” post, at 248 (emphasis deleted), in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. In this regard, we note that already at least one District Court evidently not only has read the opinion below as prescribing a general rule, but in addition has interpreted that rule more broadly than we do. See Saunders v. Hercules, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 1137, 1142 (WD Va. 1981) (“in view of the recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor Company, 645 F. 2d 183 (4th Cir. 1981)... [i]t is clear... that a person who has been discriminated against does not have to accept an offer of reemployment where back pay has not been offered”).
See American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U. S. 63, 76 (1982) (“Seniority provisions are of ‘overriding importance’ in collective bargaining,... and they ‘are universally included in these contracts’ ”) (quoting Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335, 346 (1964), and Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 79 (1977)).
In his dissent, Justice Blackmun suggests that it is we who speak from the “comfor[t]’’ of the “sidelines,” post, at 256, somewhere outside “the real world,” ibid., of sex discrimination. For all the dissent’s rhetoric, however, nowhere does the dissent seriously challenge our conclusion that the rule we adopt will powerfully motivate employers to offer Title VII claimants the jobs they have been denied. But Rebecca Starr’s trial testimony eloquently explains what claimants need: “I was just wanting that job so bad because you can’t, a woman, when you’ve got three children, I needed the money, and I was wanting the job so bad.” 4 Tr. 356. Thus, it is the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether a state prosecuting attorney who acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution is amenable to suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the defendant's constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that he is not. 500 F. 2d 1301. We affirm.
I
The events which culminated in this suit span many years and several judicial proceedings. They began in January 1961, when two men attempted to rob a Los Angeles market run by Morris Hasson. One shot and fatally wounded Hasson, and the two fled in different directions. Ten days later Leonard Lingo was killed while attempting a robbery in Pomona, Cal., but his two accomplices escaped. Paul Imbler, petitioner in this case, turned himself in the next day as one of those accomplices. Subsequent investigation led the Los Angeles District Attorney to believe that Imbler and Lingo had perpetrated the first crime as well, and that Imbler had killed Hasson. Imbler was charged with first-degree felony murder for Hasson’s death.
The State’s case consisted of eyewitness testimony from Hasson’s wife and identification testimony from three men who had seen Hasson’s assailants fleeing after the shooting. Mrs. Hasson was unable to identify the gunman because a hat had obscured his face, but from police photographs she identified the killer’s companion as Leonard Lingo. The primary identification witness was Alfred Costello, a passerby on the night of the crime, who testified that he had a clear view both as the gunman emerged from the market and again a few moments later when the fleeing gunman — after losing his hat — r turned to fire a shot at Costello and to shed his coat before continuing on.. Costello positively identified Imbler as the gunman. The second identification witness, an attendant at a parking lot through which the gunman ultimately escaped, testified that he had a side and front view as the man passed. Finally, a customer who was leaving Hasson’s market as the robbers entered testified that he had a good look then and as they exited moments later. All of these witnesses identified Imbler as the gunman, and the customer also identified the second man as Leonard Lingo. Rigorous cross-examination failed to shake any of these witnesses.
Imbler’s defense was an alibi. He claimed to have spent the night of the Hasson killing bar-hopping with several persons, and to have met Lingo for the first time the morning before the attempted robbery in Pomona. This testimony was corroborated by Mayes, the other accomplice in the Pomona robbery, who also claimed to have accompanied Imbler on the earlier rounds of the bars. The jury found Imbler guilty and fixed punishment at death. On appeal the Supreme Court of California affirmed unanimously over numerous contentions of error. People v. Imbler, 57 Cal. 2d 711, 371 P. 2d 304 (1962).
Shortly thereafter Deputy District Attorney Richard Pachtman, who had been the prosecutor at Imbler’s trial and who is the respondent before this Court, wrote to the Governor of California describing evidence turned up after trial by himself and an investigator for the state correctional authority. In substance, the evidence consisted of newly discovered corroborating witnesses for Imbler’s alibi, as well as new revelations about prime witness Costello’s background which indicated that he was less trustworthy than he had represented originally to Pachtman and in his testimony. Pachtman noted that leads to some of this information had been available to Imbler’s counsel prior to trial but apparently had not been developed, that Costello had testified convincingly and withstood intense cross-examination, and that none of the new evidence was conclusive of Imbler’s innocence. He explained that he wrote from a belief that “a prosecuting attorney has a duty to be fair and see that all true facts, whether helpful to the case or not, should be presented.”
Imbler filed a state habeas corpus petition shortly after Pachtman’s letter. The Supreme Court of California appointed one of its retired justices as referee to hold a hearing, at which Costello was the main attraction. He recanted his trial identification of Imbler, and it also was established that on cross-examination and redirect he had painted a picture of his own background that was more flattering than trüe. Imbler’s corroborating witnesses, uncovered by prosecutor Pachtman’s investigations, also testified.
In his brief to the Supreme Court of California on this habeas petition, Imbler’s counsel described Pacht-man’s post-trial detective work as “[i]n the highest tradition of law enforcement and justice,” and as a premier example of “devotion to duty.” But he also charged that the prosecution had knowingly used false testimony and suppressed material evidence at Imbler’s trial. In a thorough opinion by then Justice Traynor, the Supreme Court of California unanimously rejected these contentions and denied the writ. In re Imbler, 60 Cal. 2d 554, 387 P. 2d 6 (1963). The California court noted that the hearing record fully supported the referee’s finding that Costello’s recantation of his identification lacked credibility compared to the original identification itself, id., at 562, 387 P. 2d, at 10-11, and that the new corroborating witnesses who appeared on Imbler’s behalf were unsure of their stories or were otherwise impeached, id., at 569-570, 387 P. 2d, at 14.
In 1964, the year after denial of his state habeas petition, Imbler succeeded in having his death sentence overturned on grounds unrelated to this case. In re Imbler, 61 Cal. 2d 556, 393 P. 2d 687 (1964). Rather than resentence him, the State stipulated to life imprisonment. There the matter lay for several years, until in late 1967 or early 1968 Imbler filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court based on the same contentions previously urged upon and rejected by the Supreme Court of California.
The District Court held no hearing. Instead, it decided the petition upon the record, including Pacht-man’s letter to the Governor and the transcript of the referee’s hearing ordered by the Supreme Court of California. Reading that record quite differently than had the seven justices of the State Supreme Court, the District Court found eight instances of state misconduct at Imbler’s trial, the cumulative effect of which required issuance of the writ. Imbler v. Craven, 298 F. Supp. 795, 812 (CD Cal. 1969). Six occurred during Costello’s testimony and amounted in the court’s view to the culpable use by the prosecution of misleading or false testimony. The other two instances were suppressions of evidence favorable to Imbler by a police fingerprint expert who testified at trial and by the police who investigated Hasson’s murder. The District Court ordered that the writ of habeas corpus issue unless California retried Imbler within 60 days, and denied a petition for rehearing.
The State appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, claiming that the District Court had failed to give appropriate deference to the factual determinations of the Supreme Court of California as required by 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (d). The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the District Court had merely “reached different conclusions than the state court in applying federal constitutional standards to [the] facts,” Imbler v. California, 424 F. 2d 631, 632, and certiorari was denied, 400 U. S. 865 (1970). California chose not to retry Imbler, and he was released.
At this point, after a decade of litigation and with Imbler now free, the stage was set for the present suit. In April 1972, Imbler filed a civil rights action, under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and related statutes, against respondent Pachtman, the police fingerprint expert, and various other officers of the Los Angeles police force. He alleged that a conspiracy among them unlawfully to charge and convict him had caused him loss of liberty and other grievous injury. He demanded $2.7 million in actual and exemplary damages from each defendant, plus $15,-000 attorney’s fees.
Imbler attempted to incorporate into his complaint the District Court’s decision granting the writ of habeas corpus, and for the most part tracked that court’s opinion in setting out the overt acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. The gravamen of his complaint against Pachtman was that he had “with intent, and on other occasions with negligence” allowed Costello to give false testimony as found by the District Court, and that the fingerprint expert’s suppression of evidence was “chargeable under federal law” to Pachtman. In addition Imbler claimed that Pachtman had prosecuted him with knowledge of a lie detector test that had “cleared” Imbler, and that Pachtman had used at trial a police artist’s sketch of Hasson’s killer made shortly after the crime and allegedly altered to resemble Imbler more closely after the investigation had focused upon him.
Pachtman moved under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12 (b)(6) to have the complaint dismissed as to him. The District Court, noting that public prosecutors repeatedly had been held immune from civil liability for “acts done as part of their traditional official functions,” found that Pacht-man’s alleged acts fell into that category and granted his motion. Following the entry of final judgment as to Pachtman under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54 (b), Imbler appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court, one judge dissenting, affirmed the District Court in an opinion finding Pachtman’s alleged acts to have been committed “during prosecutorial activities which can only be characterized as an ‘integral part of the judicial process,’ ” 500 F. 2d, at 1302, quoting Marlowe v. Coakley, 404 F. 2d 70 (CA9 1968). We granted certiorari to consider the important and recurring issue of prosecutorial liability under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. 420 U. S. 945 (1975).
II
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983 provides that “[e]very person” who acts under color of state law to deprive another of a constitutional right shall be answerable to that person in a suit for damages. The statute thus creates a species of tort liability that on its face admits of no immunities, and some have argued that it should be applied as stringently as it reads. But that view has not prevailed.
This Court first considered the implications of the statute’s literal sweep in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951). There it was claimed that members of a state legislative committee had called the plaintiff to appear before them, not for a proper legislative purpose, but to intimidate him into silence on certain matters of public concern, and thereby had deprived him of his constitutional rights. Because legislators in both England and this country had enjoyed absolute immunity for their official actions, Tenney squarely presented the issue of whether the Reconstruction Congress had intended to restrict the availability in § 1983 suits of those immunities which historically, and for reasons of public policy, had been accorded to various categories of officials. The Court concluded that immunities “well grounded in history and reason” had not been abrogated “by covert inclusion in the general language” of § 1983. 341 U. S., at 376. Regardless of any unworthy purpose animating their actions, legislators were held to enjoy under this statute their usual immunity when acting “in a field where legislators traditionally have power to act.” Id., at 379.
The decision in Tenney established that § 1983 is to be read in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather than in derogation of them. Before today the Court has had occasion to consider the liability of several types of government officials in addition to legislators. The common-law absolute immunity of judges for “acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction,” see Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872), was found to be preserved under § 1983 in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 554-555 (1967). In the same case, local police officers sued for a deprivation of liberty resulting from unlawful arrest were held to enjoy under § 1983 a “good faith and probable cause” defense coextensive with their defense to false arrest actions at common law. 386 U. S., at 555-557. We found qualified immunities appropriate in two recent cases. In Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232 (1974), we concluded that the Governor and other executive officials of a State had a qualified immunity that varied with “the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the office and all the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time of the action....” Id., at 247. Last Term in Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308 (1975), we held that school officials, in the context of imposing disciplinary penalties, were not liable so long as they could not reasonably have known that their action violated students’ clearly established constitutional rights, and provided they did not act with malicious intention to cause constitutional or other injury. Id., at 322; cf. O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563, 577 (1975). In Scheuer and in Wood, as in the two earlier cases, the considerations underlying the nature of the immunity of the respective officials in suits at common law led to essentially the same immunity under § 1983. See 420 U. S., at 318-321; 416 U. S., at 239-247, and n. 4.
III
This case marks our first opportunity to address the § 1983 liability of a state prosecuting officer. The Courts of Appeals, however, have confronted the issue many times and under varying circumstances. Although the precise contours of their holdings have been unclear at times, at bottom they are virtually unanimous that a prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for damages when he acts within the scope of his prosecutorial duties. These courts sometimes have described the prosecutor’s immunity as a form of “quasi-judicial” immunity and referred to it as derivative of the immunity of judges recognized in Pierson v. Ray, supra. Petitioner focuses upon the “quasi-judicial” characterization, and contends that it illustrates a fundamental illogic in according absolute immunity to a prosecutor. He argues that the prosecutor, ás a member of the executive branch, cannot claim the immunity reserved for the judiciary, but only a qualified immunity akin to that accorded other executive officials in this Court’s previous cases.
Petitioner takes an overly simplistic approach to the issue of prosecutorial liability. As noted above, our earlier decisions on § 1983 immunities were not products of judicial fiat that officials in different branches of government are differently amenable to suit under § 1983. Rather, each was predicated upon a considered inquiry into the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and the interests behind it. The liability of a state prosecutor under § 1983 must be determined in the same manner.
A
The function of a prosecutor that most often invites a common-law tort action is his decision to initiate a prosecution, as this may lead to a suit for malicious prosecution if the State’s case misfires. The first American case to address the question of a prosecutor’s amenability to such an action was Griffith v. Slinkard, 146 Ind. 117, 44 N. E. 1001 (1896). The complaint charged that a local prosecutor without probable cause added the plaintiff’s name to a grand jury true bill after the grand jurors had refused to indict him, with the result that the plaintiff was arrested and forced to appear in court repeatedly before the charge finally was nolle prossed. Despite allegations of malice, the Supreme Court of Indiana dismissed the action on the ground that the prosecutor was absolutely immune. Id., at 122, 44 N. E., at 1002.
The Griffith view on prosecutorial immunity became the clear majority rule on the issue. The question eventually came to this Court on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F. 2d 396 (1926), the claim was that the defendant, a Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States, maliciously and without probable cause procured plaintiff’s grand jury indictment by the willful introduction of false and misleading evidence. Plaintiff sought some $300,000 in damages for having been subjected to the rigors of a trial, in which the court ultimately directed a verdict against the Government. The District Court dismissed the complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. After reviewing the development of the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity, id., at 399-404, that court stated:
“In our opinion the law requires us to hold that a special assistant to the Attorney General of the United States, in the performance of the duties imposed upon him by law, is immune from a civil action for malicious prosecution based on an indictment and prosecution, although it results in a verdict of not guilty rendered by a jury. The immunity is absolute, and is grounded on principles of public policy.” Id., at 406.
After briefing and oral argument, this Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in a per curiam opinion. Yaselli v. Goff, 275 U. S. 503 (1927).
The common-law immunity of a prosecutor is based upon the same considerations that underlie the common-law immunities of judges and grand jurors acting within the scope of their duties. These include concern that harassment by unfounded litigation would cause a deflection of the prosecutor’s energies from his public duties, and the possibility that he would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his public trust. One court expressed both considerations as follows:
“The office of public prosecutor is one which must be administered with courage and independence. Yet how can this be if the prosecutor is made subject to suit by those whom he accuses and fails to convict? To allow this would open the way for unlimited harassment and embarrassment of the most conscientious officials by those who would profit thereby. There would be involved in every case the possible consequences of a failure to obtain a conviction. There would always be a question of possible civil action in case the prosecutor saw fit to move dismissal of the case.... The apprehension of such consequences would tend toward great uneasiness and toward weakening the fearless and impartial policy which should characterize the administration of this office. The work of the prosecutor would thus be impeded and we would have moved away from the desired objective of stricter and fairer law enforcement.” Pearson v. Reed, 6 Cal. App. 2d 277, 287, 44 P. 2d 592, 597 (1935).
See also Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F. 2d, at 404-406.
B
The common-law rule of immunity is thus well settled. We now must determine whether the same considerations of public policy that underlie the common-law rule likewise countenance absolute immunity under § 1983. We think they do.
If a prosecutor had only a qualified immunity, the threat of § 1983 suits would undermine performance of his duties no less than would the threat of common-law suits for malicious prosecution. A prosecutor is duty bound to exercise his best judgment both in deciding which suits to bring and in conducting them in court. The public trust of the prosecutor’s office would suffer if he were constrained in making every decision by the consequences in terms of his own potential liability in a suit for damages. Such suits could be expected with some frequency, for a defendant often will transform his resentment at being prosecuted into the ascription of improper and malicious actions to the State’s advocate. Cf. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 348; Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S., at 554. Further, if the prosecutor could be made to answer in court each time such a person charged him with wrongdoing, his energy and attention would be diverted from the pressing duty of enforcing the criminal law.
Moreover, suits that survived the pleadings would pose substantial danger of liability even to the honest prosecutor. The prosecutor’s possible knowledge of a witness’ falsehoods, the materiality of evidence not revealed to the defense, the propriety of a closing argument, and— ultimately in every case — the likelihood that prosecu-torial misconduct so infected a trial as to deny due process, are typical of issues with which judges struggle in actions for post-trial relief, sometimes to differing conclusions. The presentation of such issues in a § 1983 action often would require a virtual retrial of the criminal offense in a new forum, and the resolution of some technical issues by the lay jury. It is fair to say, we think, that the honest prosecutor would face greater difficulty in meeting the standards of qualified immunity than other executive or administrative officials. Frequently acting under serious constraints of time and even information, a prosecutor inevitably makes many decisions that could engender colorable claims of constitutional deprivation. Defending these decisions, often years after they were made, could impose unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials. Cf. Bradley v. Fisher, supra, at 349.
The affording of only a qualified immunity to the prosecutor also could have an adverse effect upon the functioning of the criminal justice system. Attaining the system’s goal of accurately determining guilt or innocence requires that both the prosecution and the defense have wide discretion in the conduct of the trial and the presentation of evidence. The veracity of witnesses in criminal cases frequently is subject to doubt before and after they testify, as is illustrated by the history of this case. If prosecutors were hampered in exercising their judgment as to the use of such witnesses by concern about resulting personal liability, the triers of fact in criminal cases often would be denied relevant evidence.
The ultimate fairness of the operation of the system itself could be weakened by subjecting prosecutors to § 1983 liability. Various post-trial procedures are available to determine whether an accused has received a fair trial. These procedures include the remedial powers of the trial judge, appellate review, and state and federal post-conviction collateral remedies. In all of these the attention of the reviewing judge or tribunal is focused primarily on whether there was a fair trial under law. This focus should not be blurred by even the subconscious knowledge that a post-trial decision in favor of the accused might result in the prosecutor’s being called upon to respond in damages for his error or mistaken judgment.
We conclude that the considerations outlined above dictate the same absolute immunity under § 1983 that the prosecutor enjoys at common law. To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty. But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest. It would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor’s duty that is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system. Moreover, it often would prejudice defendants in criminal cases by skewing post-conviction judicial decisions that should be made with the sole purpose of insuring justice. With the issue thus framed, we find ourselves in agreement with Judge Learned Hand, who wrote of the prosecutor’s immunity from actions for malicious prosecution:
“As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation.” Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (CA2 1949), cert. denied, 339 U. S. 949 (1950).
See Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F. 2d, at 404; cf. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S., at 320.
We emphasize that the immunity of prosecutors from liability in suits under § 1983 does not leave the public powerless to deter misconduct or to punish that which occurs. This Court has never suggested that the policy considerations which compel civil immunity for certain governmental officials also place them beyond the reach of the criminal law. Even judges, cloaked with absolute civil immunity for centuries, could be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional rights on the strength of 18 U. S. C. § 242, the criminal analog of § 1983. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 503 (1974); cf. Gravel v. United States, 408 U. S. 606, 627 (1972). The prosecutor would fare no better for his willful acts. Moreover, a prosecutor stands perhaps unique, among officials whose acts could deprive persons of constitutional rights, in his amenability to professional discipline by an association of his peers. These checks undermine the argument that the imposition of civil liability is the only way to insure that prosecutors are mindful of the constitutional rights of persons accused of crime.
IV
It remains to delineate the boundaries of our holding. As noted, supra, at 416, the Court of Appeals emphasized that each of respondent’s challenged activities was an “integral part of the judicial process.” 600 F. 2d, at 1302. The purpose of the Court of Appeals’ focus upon the functional nature of the activities rather than respondent’s status was to distinguish and leave standing those cases, in its Circuit and in some others, which hold that a prosecutor engaged in certain investigative activities enjoys, not the absolute immunity associated with the judicial process, but only a good-faith defense comparable to the policeman’s. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S., at 557. We agree with the Court of Appeals that respondent’s activities were intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, and thus were functions to which the reasons for absolute immunity apply with full force. We have no occasion to consider whether like or similar reasons require immunity for those aspects of the prosecutor’s responsibility that cast him in the role of an administrator or investigative officer rather than that of advocate. We hold only that in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accordingly is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
This shot formed the basis of a second count against Imbler for assault, which was tried with the murder count.
This coat, identified by Mrs. Hasson as that worn by her husband’s assailant, yielded a gun determined by ballistics evidence to be the murder weapon.
A fourth man who saw Hasson’s killer leaving the scene identified Imbler in a pretrial lineup, but police were unable to find him at the time of trial.
Imbler also received a 10-year prison term on the assault charge. See n. 1, supra.
Brief for Respondent, App. A, p. 6. The record does not indicate what specific action was taken in response to Pachtman’s letter. We do note that the letter was dated August 17, 1962, and that Imbler’s execution, scheduled for September 12, 1962, subsequently was stayed. The letter became a part of the permanent record in the case available to the courts in all subsequent litigation.
Brief for Respondent 5.
See generally Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264 (1959); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963).
The District Court found that Costello had given certain ambiguous or misleading testimony, and had lied flatly about his criminal record, his education, and his current income. As to the misleading testimony, the court found that either Pachtman or a police officer present in the courtroom knew it was misleading. As to the false testimony, the District Court concluded that Pachtman had “cause to suspect” its falsity although, apparently, no actual knowledge thereof. See 298 F. Supp., at 799-807. The Supreme Court of California earlier had addressed and rejected allegations based on many of the same parts of Costello's testimony. It found either an absence of falsehood or an absence of prosecutorial knowledge in each instance. See In re Imbler, 60 Cal. 2d 554, 562-565, and n. 3, 387 P. 2d 6, 10-12, and n. 3 (1963).
See 298 F. Supp., at 809-811. The Supreme Court of California earlier had rejected similar allegations. See In re Imbler, supra, at 566-568, 387 P. 2d, at 12-13.
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983, originally passed as § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, reads in full:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
See, e. g., Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 647, 559 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 382-383 (1951) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
The Court described the immunity of judges as follows:
“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine, in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872). This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it ‘is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.’ ” 386 U. S., at 553-554 (citation omitted).
The procedural difference between the absolute and the qualified immunities is important. An absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, so long as the official’s actions were within the scope of the immunity. The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 238-239 (1974); Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, 320-322 (1975).
The elements of this immunity were described in Scheuer as follows:
“It is the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, coupled with good faith belief, that affords a basis for qualified immunity of executive officers for acts performed in the course of official conduct.” 416 U. S., at 247-248.
In Tenney v. Brandhove, of course, the Court looked to the immunity accorded legislators by the Federal and State Constitutions, as well as that developed by the common law. 341 U. S., at 372-375. See generally Doe v. McMillan, 412 U. S. 306 (1973).
Fanale v. Sheeky, 385 F. 2d 866, 868 (CA2 1967); Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F. 2d 581 (CA3 1966), cert. denied, 386 U. S. 1021 (1967); Carmack v. Gibson, 363 F. 2d 862, 864 (CA5 1966); Tyler v. Witkowski, 511 F. 2d 449, 450-451 (CA7 1975); Barnes v. Dorsey, 480 F. 2d 1057, 1060 (CA8 1973); Kostal v. Stoner, 292 F. 2d 492, 493 (CA10 1961), cert. denied, 369 U. S. 868 (1962); cf. Guerro v. Mulhearn, 498 F. 2d 1249, 1255-1256 (CA1 1974); Weathers v. Ebert, 505 F. 2d 514, 515-516 (CA4 1974). But compare Hurlburt v. Graham, 323 F. 2d 723 (CA6 1963), with Hilliard v. Williams, 465 F. 2d 1212 (CA6), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1029 (1972). See Part IV, infra.
E. g., Tyler v. Witkowski, supra, at 450; Kostal v. Stoner, supra, at 493; Hampton v. City of Chicago, 484 F. 2d 602, 608 (CA7 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 917 (1974). See n. 20, infra.
The Supreme Court of Indiana in Griffith cited an earlier Massachusetts decision, apparently as authority for its own holding. But that case, Parker v. Huntington, 68 Mass. 124 (1854), involved the elements of a malicious prosecution cause of action rather than the immunity of a prosecutor. See also Note, 73 U. Pa. L. Rev. 300, 304 (1925).
Smith v. Parman, 101 Kan. 115, 165 P. 663 (1917); Semmes v. Collins, 120 Miss. 265, 82 So. 145 (1919); Kittler v. Kelsch, 56 N. D. 227, 216 N. W. 898 (1927); Watts v. Gerking, 111 Ore. 654, 228 P. 135 (1924) (on rehearing). Contra, Leong Yau v. Carden, 23 Haw. 362 (1916).
The immunity of a judge for acts within his jurisdiction has roots extending to the earliest days of the common law. See Floyd v. Barker, 12 Coke 23, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305 (1608). Chancellor Kent traced some of its history in Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johns. 282 (N. Y. 1810), and this Court accepted the rule of judicial immunity in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872). See n. 12, supra. The immunity of grand jurors, an almost equally venerable common-law tenet, see Floyd v. Barker, supra, also has been adopted in this country. See, e. g., Turpen v. Booth, 56 Cal. 65 (1880); Hunter v. Mathis, 40 Ind. 356 (1872). Courts that have extended the same immunity to the prosecutor have sometimes remarked on the fact that all three officials — judge, grand juror, and prosecutor — exercise a discretionary judgment on the basis of evidence presented to them. Smith v. Parman, supra; Watts v. Gerking, supra. It is the functional comparability of their judgments to those of the judge that has resulted in both grand jurors and prosecutors being referred to as “quasi-judicial” officers, and their immunities being termed “quasi
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we must decide which court — the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the appropriate regional Court of Appeals — has jurisdiction over an appeal from a Federal District Court’s decision of a case raising both a nontax claim under the Little Tucker Act and a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
I
During World War II, the Government of the United States removed approximately 120,000 Japanese-Americans from their homes and placed them in internment camps. Respondents are an organization of Japanese-Americans and 19 individuals — former internees and their representatives. They filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking damages and declaratory relief for the tangible and intangible injuries suffered because of this incident. Jurisdiction was based on, inter alia, the Little Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1346(a)(2), and the FTCA, 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b). The District Court concluded that all claims were barred either by sovereign immunity or the applicable statute of limitations. 586 F. Supp. 769 (1984).
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court reversed the District Court’s dismissal of certain claims under the Little Tucker Act. 251 U. S. App. D. C. 145, 782 F. 2d 227 (1986). First, the court concluded that it, rather than the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, had jurisdiction over the appeal. It noted that 28 U. S. C. § 1295(a)(2) generally grants the Federal Circuit exclusive jurisdiction of appeals in cases involving nontax claims under the Little Tucker Act. But it concluded that Congress did not intend the Federal Circuit to hear appeals of such cases when they also included FTCA claims. Id., at 157-158, 782 F. 2d, at 239-241. On the merits, the court concluded that the statute of limitations did not begin to run on certain of respondents’ Little Tucker Act claims until 1980, when Congress created the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. Id., at 171, 782 F. 2d, at 253. Chief Judge Markey, sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 291(b), filed a dissent, disagreeing with the court’s jurisdictional analysis as well as its decision as to the statute of limitations. Id., at 174-175, 782 F. 2d, at 256-263. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied by a 6-to-5 vote. 253 U. S. App. D. C. 233, 793 F. 2d 304 (1986). Judge Bork, joined by four other judges, filed a dissent from denial of the petition, in which he disagreed with both of the court’s conclusions. Id., at 233-234, 793 F. 2d, at 304-313.
Because of the potentially broad impact of the Court of Appeals’ decision and because of the importance of the jurisdictional question, we granted the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari. 479 U. S. 960 (1986). We conclude that the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction and therefore do not address the merits of its decision.
i — i H-1
In 1982, Congress passed the Federal Courts Improvement Act, creating the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Among other things, the Act grants the Federal Circuit exclusive appellate jurisdiction over a variety of cases involving the Federal Government. 28 U. S. C. § 1295(a)(2). Specifically, the Act provides:
“The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction—
“(2) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States ... if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1346 of this title, except that jurisdiction of an appeal in a case brought in a district court under section 1346(a)(1), 1346(b), 1346(e), or 1346(f) of this title or under section 1346(a)(2) when the claim is [related to federal taxes] shall be governed by sections 1291,1292, and 1294 of this title.”
This section establishes two undisputed propositions relevant to this case. First, the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction of a case raising only a nontax claim under the Little Tucker Act, § 1346(a)(2). Second, the appropriate regional Court of Appeals — in this case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — has exclusive appellate jurisdiction under §§ 1291, 1292, and 1294 of a case raising only a claim under the FTCA, § 1346(b).
This case presents claims under both the Little Tucker Act and the FTCA, a situation not specifically addressed by § 1295(a)(2). Resolution of this problem turns on interpretation of the second clause of this subsection, the so-called “except clause.” The Solicitor General contends that the except clause merely describes claims that do not suffice to create jurisdiction in the Federal Circuit. Thus, he argues, appeals of FTCA claims must be heard in the Federal Circuit if, as in this case, they are joined with claims that fall within its exclusive jurisdiction. By contrast, respondents contend that the except clause indicates not only that FTCA claims fail to create jurisdiction in the Federal Circuit, but also that the presence of an FTCA claim renders inapplicable the Federal Circuit’s otherwise exclusive jurisdiction over nontax Little Tucker Act claims.
A
As always, the “‘starting point in every case involving construction of a statute is the language itself.’” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U. S. 36, 43 (1986) (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 756 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring)). Unfortunately, as we have noted, see United States v. Mottaz, 476 U. S. 834, 848-849, n. 11 (1986), the language of this statute does not clearly address a “mixed” case that presents both nontax Little Tucker Act claims and FTCA claims. Congress could have expressed the Solicitor General’s interpretation more clearly by adding the word “solely” to the except clause, and thus provided that an appeal from a case brought solely under § 1346(b) should be to the regional court of appeals. Or, if Congress had intended the broader meaning of the except clause urged by respondents, it could have added a phrase akin to “in whole or in part” to the except clause, thus providing that an appeal of a case brought in whole or in part under § 1346(b) should be to the regional court of appeals. Because Congress employed neither of these alternatives, we are left with the task of determining the more plausible interpretation of the language Congress did include in § 1295(a)(2).
In our view, the Solicitor General’s reading of the statute is more natural. Although Congress included the phrase “in whole or in part” in the granting clause at the beginning of § 1295(a)(2), it did not repeat this phrase in the except clause later in the same paragraph. The proximity of the clauses suggests that the variation in wording was not accidental. Also, in one instance the statute describes the excepted cases by reference to the basis of “the claim.” See § 1295(a)(2) (providing for appeals to regional courts of appeals “in a case brought in a district court. . . under section 1346(a)(2) when the claim is [related to federal taxes]” (emphasis added)). This suggests that the except clause was directed at cases raising only one claim; it strains the language to apply the except clause to cases raising multiple claims, some within and some not within the except clause.
Respondents rely heavily on the wording of the preceding paragraph of the statute, § 1295(a)(1). That section provides exclusive appellate jurisdiction in the Federal Circuit
“of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States ... if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of this title, except that a case involving a claim arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights or trademarks and no other claims under section 1338(a) shall be [appealed to the appropriate regional court of appeals].”
Like subsection (a)(2), subsection (a)(1) grants the Federal Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising under one section of the Judicial Code, but has an except clause governing certain types of cases under that section. Respondents note that the (a)(1) except clause specifically deals with mixed cases. On its face it applies only to cases raising the excepted claims “and no other claims.” They argue that the failure to include the words “and no other claims” in the subsection (a)(2) except clause indicates that Congress intended a different scope for the two except clauses. Thus, in their view, the Solicitor General’s interpretation requires us to read into (a)(2) the words that Congress intentionally omitted.
Although respondents’ argument has some force, ultimately we are not persuaded. Neither of the proffered readings can remove the ambiguity inherent in this statute. Respondents’ textual argument — based on a comparison of the language of § 1295(a)(1) with the language of §1295 (a)(2) — is more attenuated than the Solicitor General’s textual argument, that rests on the variation between the clauses of subsection (a)(2) itself. While a more carefully drafted statute would have avoided both of these problems, we find it difficult to assume that the variation within the same subsection was inadvertent.
B
Because the statute is ambiguous, congressional intent is particularly relevant to our decision. A motivating concern of Congress in creating the Federal Circuit was the “special need for nationwide uniformity” in certain areas of the law. S. Rep. No. 97-275, p. 2 (1981) (hereinafter 1981 Senate Report); S. Rep. No. 96-304, p. 8 (1979) (hereinafter 1979 Senate Report). The Senate Reports explained: “[T]here are areas of the .law in which the appellate courts reach inconsistent decisions on the same issue, or in which — although the rule of law may be fairly clear — courts apply the law unevenly when faced with the facts of individual cases.” 1981 Senate Report, at 3; 1979 Senate Report, at 9. The Federal Circuit was designed to provide “a prompt, definitive answer to legal questions” in these areas. 1981 Senate Report, at 1; 1979 Senate Report, at 1. Nontort claims against the Federal Government present one of the principal areas in which Congress sought such uniformity. Thus, Congress decided to confer jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit in “all federal contract appeals in which the United States is a defendant.” H. R. Rep. No. 97-312, p. 18 (1981) (hereinafter 1981 House Report); H. R. Rep. No. 96-1300, p. 16 (1980) (hereinafter 1980 House Report).
For the most part, the statute unambiguously effectuates this goal. Tucker Act claims for more than $10,000 may be brought only in the United States Claims Court. 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1). Decisions of the United States Claims Court are appealable only to the Federal Circuit, not the regional courts of appeals. § 1295(a)(3). Claims for less than $10,000 (i. e., Little Tucker Act claims) may be brought either in a federal district court or in the United States Claims Court. § 1346(a)(2). These claims, so long as they are not related to federal taxes, also are appealable only to the Federal Circuit. §§ 1295(a)(2), (3). A conspicuous feature of these judicial arrangements is the creation of exclusive Federal Circuit jurisdiction over every appeal from a Tucker Act or nontax Little Tucker Act claim. Given this comprehensive framework and the strong expressions of the need for uniformity in the area, one would expect any exception intended by Congress to have been made explicit, rather than left to inferences drawn from loose language.
C
Despite the language of the statute and the evident congressional desire for uniform adjudication of Little Tucker Act claims, the Court of Appeals inferred an exception to exclusive Federal Circuit jurisdiction in cases that include FTCA claims. In supporting the Court of Appeals’ judgment, respondents rely on the statement, thrice repeated in the congressional Reports, that “[bjecause cases brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act frequently involve the application of State law, those appeals will continue to be brought to the regional courts of appeals.” 1981 Senate Report, at 20; 1981 House Report, at 42; 1980 House Report, at 34. Respondents argue that this statement evidences a congressional intent to deprive the Federal Circuit of its otherwise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over nontax Little Tucker Act claims whenever an FTCA claim is presented in the same case. We find this argument unpersuasive when viewed in the context of the legislative history as a whole.
First, the congressional Reports indicate only that Congress saw no affirmative need for national uniformity in FTCA cases, not that the perceived need for regional adjudication of FTCA claims outweighed the strong and oft-noted intent of Congress that only the Federal Circuit should have jurisdiction of appeals in nontax Little Tucker Act cases. Second, Congress specifically rejected the idea that patent and Tucker Act appeals should be decided by a “specialized court” incapable of deciding more general legal issues. The Federal Circuit decides questions arising under the Federal Constitution and statutes whenever such questions arise in cases within the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. There is no reason to believe that Congress intended to exempt the relatively common tort questions presented by the average FTCA cases from the Federal Circuit’s already-broad docket. Third, if Congress thought the presence of state-law issues was sufficient to override the need for centralization of nontax Little Tucker Act claims, the except clause logically should have included all cases raising state-law issues, not just cases under the FTCA. But Congress did not preclude the Federal Circuit from deciding all state-law questions, or even all FTCA claims. For example, even under respondents’ reading of the statute, the Federal Circuit can hear FTCA claims whenever they are joined with patent claims under §1338. See § 1295(a)(1). That Congress allowed the Federal Circuit to hear FTCA claims in this context refutes respondents’ contention that Congress demanded regional adjudication of all FTCA claims.
For these reasons, we conclude that Congress intended for centralized determination of nontax Little Tucker Act claims to predominate over regional adjudication of FTCA claims. We hold that a mixed case, presenting both a nontax Little Tucker Act claim and an FTCA claim, may be appealed only to the Federal Circuit.
Ill
We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that court, with instructions to transfer the case to the Federal Circuit. See 28 U. S. C. § 1631.
It is so ordered.
Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Jurisdiction in district courts under the Little Tucker Act is limited to nontort claims not exceeding $10,000. 28 U. S. C. § 1346(a)(2). See 14 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3657, pp. 284-288 (2d ed. 1985). This decentralized jurisdiction was designed to “ ‘give all persons having claims for comparatively small amounts the right to bring suits in the districts where they and their witnesses reside without subjecting them to the expense and annoyance of litigating in Washington.’” Id., at 274 (quoting United States v. King, 119 F. Supp. 398, 403 (Alaska 1954)). With minor exceptions, the Tucker Act grants the United States Claims Court jurisdiction of similar claims without regard to the amount of the claim. 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1). Thus, Tucker Act claims for more than $10,000 can be brought only in the United States Claims Court. Claims for less than $10,000 generally can be brought either in a federal district court or in the United States Claims Court.
Respondents also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, No. 86-298, seeking review of other aspects of the Court of Appeals’ judgment. Because our resolution of No. 86-510 requires us to vacate the entire judgment of the Court of Appeals, we grant the petition in No. 86-298 and remand the entire case to the Court of Appeals.
Neither the parties nor any judge of the Court of Appeals suggested bifurcating the case so that the Little Tucker Act claims would be transferred to the Federal Circuit and the FTCA claims would remain in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. We agree that bifurcation is inappropriate. The language of § 1295(a)(2) discusses jurisdiction over an appeal “in a case,” not over an appeal from decision of “a claim.” This strongly suggests that appeals of different parts of a single case should not go to different courts. Also, at least when a case has not been bifurcated in the district court, a bifurcated appeal of the different legal claims raised in any one case would result in an inefficient commitment of the limited resources of the federal appellate courts. Cf. Atari, Inc. v. JS & A Group, Inc., 747 F. 2d 1422, 1438-1440 (CA Fed. 1984) (en banc) (rejecting bifurcated appeals in patent cases).
The Little Tucker Act, of course, covers not only contract claims, but also other claims for money damages “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department, ... or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U. S. C. § 1346(a)(2). See Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 605-606, 372 F. 2d 1002, 1007-1008 (1967) (discussing noncontractual liability under the Tucker Act).
The Senate Reports described “such an approach as being inconsistent with the imperative of avoiding undue specialization within the Federal judicial system.” 1981 Senate Report, at 6; 1979 Senate Report, at 13. They also proffered a broad conception of the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction: “[I]t will have a varied docket spanning a broad range of legal issues and types of cases. It will handle all patent appeals, plus government claims case[s] and all other appellate matters that are now considered by the [Court of Customs and Patent Appeals] or the Court of Claims — cases which contain a wide variety of issues.
“This rich docket assures that the work of the proposed court will be broad and diverse and not narrowly specialized. The judges will have no lack of exposure to a broad variety of legal problems. Moreover, the subject matter of the new court will be sufficiently mixed to prevent any special interest from dominating it.” 1981 Senate Report, at 6; 1979 Senate Report, at 13.
See also 1981 House Report, at 19; 1980 House Report, at 17.
There may have been a concern that Federal Circuit judges would not be familiar with questions of state tort law. But this problem is mitigated considerably by the fact that these cases are tried before local federal district judges, who are likely to be familiar with the applicable state law. Indeed, a district judge’s determination of a state-law question usually is reviewed with great deference. E. g., Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 499 (1941) (review by this Court); Alabama Elec. Cooperative, Inc. v. First National Bank, 684 F. 2d 789, 792 (CA11 1982) (review by a Court of Appeals). But see In re McLinn, 739 F. 2d 1395, 1400 (CA9 1984) (en banc) (de novo review by a Court of Appeals). It is certainly not clear that a panel of the Federal Circuit would be less competent to review such determinations than a panel of a regional court of appeals.
The legislative development of the other claims in the except clause also supports our interpretation. As enacted, the except clause lists five types of claims. Its original version listed only two types of claims, FTCA claims and claims under § 1346(a)(1). S. 677, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., § 735(a) (1979). Under that bill, the Federal Circuit would have had exclusive jurisdiction (in addition to the jurisdiction Congress eventually gave it) over claims under §§ 1346(e) and (f), as well as tax-related Little Tucker Act claims. Subsequent amendments added these three types of claims to the except clause. Under respondents’ theory, the original bill must have reflected a view that there was an affirmative need for centralization of these claims; subsequent amendments reflected a complete reversal of viewpoint to a decision that there was an affirmative harm in centralized adjudication of these claims. Thus, respondents implicitly argue that Congress originally thought that all of these claims should have been appealed to the Federal Circuit, but eventually determined not only that these claims should be appealed to the regional circuits, but also that the need for regional appeals of those claims would render inapplicable the Federal Circuit’s otherwise exclusive jurisdiction over nontax Little Tucker Act claims. We think such a reversal of intent would have been reflected somewhere in the legislative history.
Our interpretation does not posit such a sharp and undocumented swing of viewpoint. In our view, Congress originally thought that appeals of these claims should be centralized. Subsequently, Congress decided that they could be adjudicated adequately in the regional courts of appeals. Nothing suggests, however, that Congress thought regional adjudication was so important as to bar centralized adjudication of mixed cases.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to consider the constitutionality of § 3 (e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, 7 U. S. C. § 2012 (e), as amended in 1971, 84 Stat. 2048, which, with certain exceptions, excludes from participation in the food stamp program any household containing an individual who is unrelated to any other member of the household. In practical effect, § 3 (e) creates two classes of persons for food stamp purposes: one class is composed of those individuals who live in households all of whose members are related to one another, and the other class consists of those individuals who live in households containing one or more members who are unrelated to the rest. The latter class of persons is denied federal food assistance. A three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia held this classification invalid as violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 345 F. Supp. 310 (1972). We noted probable jurisdiction. 409 U. S. 1036 (1972). We affirm.
I
The federal food stamp program was established in 1964 in an effort to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among the more needy segments of our society. 7 U. S. C. § 2011. Eligibility for participation in the program is determined on a household rather than an individual basis. 7 CFR §271.3 (a). An eligible household purchases sufficient food stamps to provide that household with a nutritionally adequate diet. The household pays for the stamps at a reduced rate based upon its size and cumulative income. The food stamps are then used to purchase food at retail stores, and the Government redeems the stamps at face value, thereby paying the difference between the actual cost of the food and the amount paid by the household for the stamps. See 7 U. S. C. §§ 2013 (a), 2016, 2025 (a).
As initially enacted, § 3 (e) defined a “household” as “a group of related or non-related individuals, who are not residents of an institution or boarding house, but are living as one economic unit sharing common cooking facilities and for whom food is customarily purchased in common.” In January 1971, however, Congress redefined the term “household” so as to include only groups of related individuals. Pursuant to this amendment, the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated regulations rendering ineligible for participation in the program any “household” whose members are not “all related to each other.”
Appellees in this case consist of several groups of individuals who allege that, although they satisfy the income eligibility requirements for federal food assistance, they have nevertheless been excluded from the program solely because the persons in each group are not “all related to each other.” Appellee Jacinta Moreno, for example, is a 56-year-old diabetic who lives with Ermina Sanchez and the latter's three children. They share common living expenses, and Mrs. Sanchez helps to care for appellee. Appellee’s monthly income, derived from public assistance, is $75; Mrs. Sanchez receives $133 per month from public assistance. The household pays $135 per month for rent, gas, and electricity, of which appellee pays $50. Appellee spends $10 per month for transportation to a hospital for regular visits, and $5 per month for laundry. That leaves her $10 per month for food and other necessities. Despite her poverty, appellee has been denied federal food assistance solely because she is unrelated to the other members of her household. Moreover, although Mrs. Sanchez and her three children were permitted to purchase $108 worth of food stamps per month for $18, their participation in the program will be terminated if appellee Moreno continues to live with them.
Appellee Sheilah Hejny is married and has three children. Although the Hejnys are indigent, they took in a 20-year-old girl, who is unrelated to them, because “we felt she had emotional problems.” The Hejnys receive $144 worth of food stamps each month for $14. If they allow the 20-year-old girl to continue to live with them, they will be denied food stamps by reason of § 3 (e).
Appellee Victoria Keppler has a daughter with an acute hearing deficiency. The daughter requires special instruction in a school for the deaf. The school is located in an area in which appellee could not ordinarily afford to live. Thus, in order to make the most of her limited resources, appellee agreed to share an apartment near the school with a woman who, like appellee, is on public assistance. Since appellee is not related to the woman, appellee’s food stamps have been, and will continue to be, cut off if they continue to live together.
These and two other groups of appellees instituted a class action against the Department of Agriculture, its Secretary, and two other departmental officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of the 1971 amendment of § 3 (e) and its implementing regulations. In essence, appellees contend, and the District Court held, that the “unrelated person” provision of § 3 (e) creates an irrational classification in violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We agree.
II
Under traditional equal protection analysis, a legislative classification must be sustained if the classification itself is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. See Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 546 (1972); Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S. 78, 81 (1971); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 485 (1970); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 426 (1961). The purposes of the Food Stamp Act were expressly set forth in the congressional “declaration of policy”:
“It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress ... to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's population and raise levels of nutrition among low-income households. The Congress hereby finds that the limited food purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger and malnutrition among members of such households. The Congress further finds that increased utilization of food in establishing and maintaining adequate national levels of nutrition will promote the distribution in a beneficial manner of our agricultural abundances and will strengthen our agricultural economy, as well as result in more orderly marketing and distribution of food. To alleviate such hunger and malnutrition, a food stamp program is herein authorized which will permit low-income households to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet through normal channels of trade.” 7 U. S. C. § 2011.
The challenged statutory classification (households of related persons versus households containing one or more unrelated persons) is clearly irrelevant to the stated purposes of the Act. As the District Court recognized, “[t]he relationships among persons constituting one economic unit and sharing cooking facilities have nothing to do with their abilities to stimulate the agricultural economy by purchasing farm surpluses, or with their personal nutritional requirements.” 345 F. Supp., at 313.
Thus, if it is to be sustained, the challenged classification must rationally further some legitimate governmental interest other than those specifically stated in the congressional “declaration of policy.” Regrettably, there is little legislative history to illuminate the purposes of the 1971 amendment of § 3 (e). The legislative history that does exist, however, indicates that that amendment was intended to prevent so-called “hippies” and “hippie communes” from participating in the food stamp program. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1793, p. 8; 116 Cong. Rec. 44439 (1970) (Sen. Holland). The challenged classification clearly cannot be sustained by reference to this congressional purpose. For if the constitutional conception of “equal protection of the laws” means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest. As a result, “[a] purpose to discriminate against hippies cannot, in and of itself and without reference to [some independent] considerations in the public interest, justify the 1971 amendment.” 345 F. Supp., at 314 n. 11.
Although apparently conceding this point, the Government maintains that the challenged classification should nevertheless be upheld as rationally related to the clearly legitimate governmental interest in minimizing fraud in the administration of the food stamp program. In essence, the Government contends that, in adopting the 1971 amendment, Congress might rationally have thought (1) that households with one or more unrelated members are more likely than “fully related” households to contain individuals who abuse the program by fraudulently failing to report sources of income or by voluntarily remaining poor; and (2) that such households are “relatively unstable,” thereby increasing the difficulty of detecting such abuses. But even if we were to accept as rational the Government’s wholly unsubstantiated assumptions concerning the differences between “related” and “unrelated” households, we still could not agree with the Government’s conclusion that the denial of essential federal food assistance to all otherwise eligible households containing unrelated members constitutes a rational effort to deal with these concerns.
At the outset, it is important to note that the Food Stamp Act itself contains provisions, wholly independent of § 3 (e), aimed specifically at the problems of fraud and of the voluntarily poor. For example, with certain exceptions, § 5 (c) of the Act, 7 U. S. C. § 2014 (c), renders ineligible for assistance any household containing “an able-bodied adult person between the ages of eighteen and sixty-five” who fails to register for, and accept, offered employment. Similarly, §§ 14 (b) and (c), 7 U. S. C. §§ 2023 (b) and (c), specifically impose strict criminal penalties upon any individual who obtains or uses food stamps fraudulently. The existence of these provisions necessarily casts considerable doubt upon the proposition that the 1971 amendment could rationally have been intended to prevent those very same abuses. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 452 (1972); cf. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 353-354 (1972).
Moreover, in practical effect, the challenged classification simply does not operate so as rationally to further the prevention of fraud. As previously noted, § 3 (e) defines an eligible “household” as “a group of related individuals ... [1] living as one economic unit [2] sharing common cooking facilities [and 3] for whom food is customarily purchased in common.” Thus, two unrelated persons living together and meeting all three of these conditions would constitute a single household ineligible for assistance. If financially feasible, however, these same two individuals can legally avoid the “unrelated person” exclusion simply by altering their living arrangements so as to eliminate any one of the three conditions. By so doing, they effectively create two separate “households,” both of which are eligible for assistance. See Knowles v. Butz, 358 F. Supp. 228 (ND Cal. 1973). Indeed, as the California Director of Social Welfare has explained:
“The ‘related household’ limitations will eliminate many households from eligibility in the Food Stamp Program. It is my understanding that the Congressional intent of the new regulations are specifically aimed at the ‘hippies’ and ‘hippie communes.’ Most people in this category can and will alter their living arrangements in order to remain eligible for food stamps. However, the AFDC mothers who try to raise their standard of living by sharing housing will be affected. They will not be able to utilize the altered living patterns in order to continue to be eligible without giving up their advantage of shared housing costs.”
Thus, in practical operation, the 1971 amendment excludes from participation in the food stamp program, not those persons who are “likely to abuse the program” but, rather, only those persons who are so desperately in need of aid that they cannot even afford to alter their living arrangements so as to retain their eligibility. Traditional equal protection analysis does not require that every classification be drawn with precise “ 'mathematical nicety.’ ” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S., at 485. But the classification here in issue is not only “imprecise,” it is wholly without any rational basis. The judgment of the District Court holding the “unrelated person” provision invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is therefore
Affirmed
78Stat. 703 (emphasis added). The act provided further that “[t]he term 'household' shall also mean a single individual living alone who has cooking facilities and who purchases and prepares food for home consumption.” Ibid.
84 Stat. 2048. The 1971 amendment did not affect certain groups of nonrelated individuals over 60 years of age. As amended, § 3 (e) now provides:
“The term 'household' shall mean a group of related individuals (including legally adopted children and legally assigned foster children) or non-related individuals over age 60 who are not residents of an institution or boarding house, but are living as one economic unit sharing common cooking facilities and for whom food is customarily purchased in common. The term ‘household’ shall also mean (1) a single individual living alone who has cooking facilities and who purchases and prepares food for home consumption, or (2) an elderly person who meets the requirements of section 2019 (h) of this title.” 7 U. S. C. §2012 (e).
Title 7 CFR §270.2 (Jj) provides:
“(jj) ‘Household’ means a group of persons, excluding roomers, boarders, and unrelated live-in attendants necessary for medical, housekeeping, or child care reasons, who are not residents of an institution or boarding house, and who are living as one economic unit sharing common cooking facilities and for whom food is customarily purchased in common: Provided, That:
"(1) When all persons in the group are under 60 years of age, they are all related to each other; and
“(2) When more than one of the persons in the group is under 60 years of age, and one or more other persons in the group is 60 years of age or older, each of the persons under 60 years of age is related to each other or to at least one of the persons who is 60 years of age or older.
“It shall also mean (i) a single individual living alone who purchases and prepares food for home consumption, or (ii) an elderly person as defined in this section, and his spouse.”
Appellees also argued that the regulations themselves were invalid because beyond the scope of the authority conferred upon the Secretary by the statute. The District Court rejected that contention, and appellees have not pressed that argument on appeal. Moreover, appellees did not challenge the constitutionality of the statute’s reliance on “households” rather than “individuals” as the basic unit of the food stamp program. We therefore intimate no view on that question.
“[W] hile the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, it does forbid discrimination that is ‘so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.’ ” Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163, 168 (1964); see Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 680 n. 5 (1973); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 641-642 (1969); Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954).
Indeed, the amendment first materialized, bare of committee consideration, during a conference committee’s consideration of differing House and Senate bills.
The Government initially argued to the District Court that the challenged classification might be justified as a means to foster "morality.” In rejecting that contention, the District Court noted that “interpreting the amendment as an attempt to regulate morality would raise serious constitutional questions.” 345 F. Supp. 310, 314. Indeed, citing this Court’s decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969), and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972), the District Court observed that it was doubtful, at best, whether Congress, “in the name of morality,” could “infringe the rights to privacy and freedom of association in the home.” 345 F. Supp., at 314. (Emphasis in original.) Moreover, the court also pointed out that the classification established in § 3 (e) was not rationally related “to prevailing notions of morality, since it in terms disqualifies all households of unrelated individuals, without reference to whether a particular group contains both sexes.” Id., at 315. The Government itself has now abandoned the “morality” argument. See Brief for Appellants 9.
Title 7 U. S. C. §§2023 (b) and (c) provide:
"(b) Whoever knowingly uses, transfers, acquires, alters, or possesses coupons or authorization to purchase cards in any manner not authorized by this [Act] or the regulations issued pursuant to this [Act] shall, if such coupons or authorization to purchase cards are of the value of $100 or more, be guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years or both, or, if such coupons or authorization to purchase cards are of a value of less than $100, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
“(c) Whoever presents, or causes to be presented, coupons for payment or redemption of the value of $100 or more, knowing the same to have been received, transferred, or used in any manner in violation of the provisions of this [Act] or the regulations issued pursuant to this [Act] shall be guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, or, if such coupons are of a value of less than $100, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”
App. 43.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U. S. C. §§2281, 2284, dismissing a complaint to have the Michigan Watercraft Pollution Control Act of 1970, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 323.331 et seg. (Supp. 1971), declared invalid and its enforcement enjoined. 336 F. Supp. 248 (1971). We noted probable jurisdiction, 404 U. S. 982 (1971), and affirm the District Court’s determination to abstain from decision pending state court proceedings.
The Michigan statute, effective January 1, 1971, provides in pertinent part:
“Sec. 3. (1) A person [defined in § 2 (i) to mean “an individual, partnership, firm, corporation, association or other entity”] shall not place, throw, deposit, discharge or cause to be discharged into or onto the waters of this state, any ... sewage [defined in § 2 (d) to mean “all human body wastes, treated or untreated”] ... or other liquid or solid materials which render the water unsightly, noxious or otherwise unwholesome so as to be detrimental to the public health or welfare or to the enjoyment of the water for recreational purposes.
“(2) It is unlawful to discharge, dump, throw or deposit . . . sewage . . . from a recreational, domestic or foreign watercraft used for pleasure or for the purpose of carrying passengers, cargo or otherwise engaged in commerce on the waters of this state.
“Sec. 4. (1) Any pleasure or recreational watercraft operated on the waters of this state which is moored or registered in another state or jurisdiction, if equipped with a pollution control device approved by that jurisdiction, may be approved by the [State Water Resources Commission of the Department of Natural Resources] to operate on the waters of this state.
“(2) A person owning, operating or otherwise concerned in the operation, navigation or management -of a watercraft [defined in § 2 (g) to include “foreign and domestic vessels engaged in commerce upon the waters of this state” as well as “privately owned recreational watercraft”] having a marine toilet shall not own, use or permit the use of such toilet on the waters of this state unless the toilet is equipped with 1 of the following pollution control devices:
“(a) A holding tank or self-contained marine toilet which will retain all sewage produced on the watercraft for subsequent disposal at approved dockside or onshore collection and treatment facilities.
“(b) An incinerating device which will reduce to ash all sewage produced on the watercraft. The ash shall be disposed of onshore in a manner which will preclude pollution.
“Sec. 8. . . . Commercial docks and wharfs designed for receiving and loading cargo and/or freight from commercial watercraft must furnish facilities, if determined necessary, as prescribed by the commission, to accommodate discharge of sewage from heads and galleys ; . . [of] the watercraft which utilize the docks or wharfs.
“Sec. 10. The commission may promulgate all rules necessary or convenient for the carrying out of duties and powers conferred by this act.
“Sec. 11. Any person who violates any provision of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $500.00. To be enforceable, the provision or the rule shall be of such flexibility that a watercraft owner, in carrying out the provision or rule, is able to maintain maritime safety requirements and comply with the federal marine and navigation laws and regulations.”
Appellees — the State Attorney General, the Department of Natural Resources and its Director, and the Water Resources Commission and its Executive Secretary — read these provisions as prohibiting the discharge of sewage, whether treated or untreated, in Michigan waters and as requiring vessels with marine toilets to have sewage storage devices.
Appellants — the Lake Carriers’ Association and individual members who own or operate federally enrolled and licensed Great Lakes bulk cargo vessels — challenge the Michigan law on a variety of grounds. They urge that the Michigan law is beyond the State’s police power and places an undue burden on interstate and foreign commerce, impermissibly interferes with uniform maritime law, denies them due process and equal protection of the laws, and is unconstitutionally vague. They also contend that the Michigan statute conflicts with or is pre-empted by federal law, primarily the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, and is therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause. Under the Water Quality Improvement Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is directed “[a]s soon as possible, after April 3, 1970, . . . [to] promulgate Federal standards of performance for marine sanitation devices . . . which shall be designed to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into or upon the navigable waters of the United States from new vessels and existing vessels, except vessels not equipped with installed toilet facilities.” 84 Stat. 100, 33 U. S. C. § 1163 (b)(1). These standards, which as of now are not issued, are to become effective for new vessels two years after promulgation and for existing vessels five years after promulgation. 84 Stat. 101, 33 U. S. C. § 1163 (c)(1). Thereafter, “no State . . . shall adopt or enforce any statute or regulation . . . with respect to the design, manufacture, or installation or use of any marine sanitation device on any vessel subject to the provisions of this section.” Id., § 1163 (f). However, “[u]pon application by a State, and where the Administrator determines that any applicable water quality standards require such a prohibition, he shall by regulation completely prohibit the discharge from a vessel of any sewage (whether treated or not) into those waters of such State which are the subject of the application and to which such standards apply.” Ibid. Thus, the federal law appears to contemplate sewage control through on-board treatment before disposal in navigable waters, unless the Administrator provides on special application for a complete prohibition on discharge in designated areas.
The District Court below did not reach the merits of appellants’ complaint on the ground that “the lack of a justiciable controversy precludes entry of this Court into the matter.” 336 F. Supp., at 253¡ “An overview of the factual situation presented by the evidence in this case,” said the District Court, “compels but one conclusion:''that the plaintiffs here are seeking an advisory opinion . . . Ibid. The District Court also found “compelling reasons to abstain from consideration of the matter in its present posture,” ibid. — namely, “the attitude of Michigan authorities who seek the cooperation of the industry in the implementation of its program and have not instigated, nor does it appear, threatened criminal prosecutions,” id., at 252; the availability of declaratory relief in Michigan courts; the possibility of a complete prohibition on the discharge of sewage in Michigan’s navigable waters under federal law; the absence of existing conflict between the Michigan requirements and other state laws; and the publication of proposed federal standards that might be considered by Michigan in the interpretation and enforcement of its statute.
Appellants now urge that their complaint does present an “actual controversy” within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201, that is ripe for decision. We agree. The test to be applied, of course, is the familiar one stated in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941): “Basically, the question in each case is whether . . . there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Compare, e. g., ibid., with, e. g., Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969). Since, as appellees concede, the Michigan requirements on the discharge of sewage will be preempted when the federal standards become effective, the gist of appellants’ grievance is that, according to Michigan authorities, they are required under Michigan law to install sewage storage devices that (1) may become unnecessary once federal standards, authorizing discharge of treated sewage, become applicable or (2) may, in any event, conflict with other state regulations pending the promulgation and effective date of the federal standards. The immediacy and reality of appellants’ concerns do not depend, contrary to what the District Court may have considered, on the probability that federal standards will authorize discharge of treated sewage in Michigan waters or that other States will implement sewage control requirements inconsistent with those of Michigan. They depend instead only on the present effectiveness in fact of the obligation under the Michigan statute to install sewage storage devices. For if appellants are now under such an obligation, that in and of itself makes their attack on the validity of the law a live controversy, and not an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion. See, e. g., Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761 (1945) (existing burden on interstate commerce justiciable controversy in absence of federal pre-emption or other conflicting state laws).
Regarding the present effectiveness in fact of a statutory obligation, the plurality opinion in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 508 (1961), stated that a justiciable controversy does not exist where “compliance with [challenged] statutes is uncoerced by the risk of their enforcement.” That, however, is not this case. Although appellees have indicated that they will not prosecute under the Michigan act until adequate land-based pump-out facilities are available to service vessels equipped with sewage storage devices, they have sought on the basis of the act and the threat of future enforcement to obtain compliance as soon as possible. The following colloquy that occurred on oral argument here is instructive, Tr. of Oral Arg. 34-35:
“[Appellees]: . . . We urge that the leadtime for the construction or erection of pump-out facilities is necessary, and there would be no enforcement until pump-out facilities were available.
“Q. But you’re insisting that the carriers get ready to comply and-
“[Appellees]: Yes, sir.
“Q. —because if you wait until pump-out stations are ready to begin [servicing] tanks, then there will be another great delay?
“[Appellees]: Oh, yes, sir.
“Q. So you have a rather concrete confrontation with these carriers now, don’t you?
“[Appellees]: Yes, sir, we do. . . .”
Thus, if appellants are to avoid prosecution, they must be prepared, according to Michigan authorities, to retain all sewage on board as soon as pump-out facilities are available, which, in turn, means that they must promptly install sewage storage devices. In this circumstance, compliance is coerced by the threat of enforcement, and the controversy is both immediate and real. See, e. g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925); City of Altus, Oklahoma v. Carr, 255 F. Supp. 828, aff’d per curiam, 385 U. S. 35 (1966). See generally, e. g., Comment, 62 Col. L. Rev. 106 (1962).
Appellants next argue that the District Court erred in abstaining from deciding the merits of their complaint. We agree that abstention was hot proper on the majority of grounds given by the District Court, but hold that abstention was, nevertheless, appropriate for another reason suggested but not fully articulated in its opinion. Abstention is a "judge-made doctrine . .. , first fashioned in 1941 in Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, [that] sanctions . . . escape [from immediate decision] only in narrowly limited ‘special circumstances,’ Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, 492,” Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 248 (1967), justifying “the delay and expense to which application of the abstention doctrine inevitably gives rise.” England v. Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 418 (1964). The majority of circumstances relied on by the District Court in this case do not fall within that category. First, the absence of an immediate threat of prosecution does not argue against reaching the merits of appellants’ complaint. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971), this Court held that, apart from “extraordinary circumstances,” a federal court may not enjoin a pending state prosecution or declare invalid the statute under which the prosecution was brought. The decisions there were premised on considerations of equity practice and comity in our federal system that have little force in the absence of a pending state proceeding. In that circumstance, exercise of federal court jurisdiction ordinarily is appropriate if the conditions for declaratory or injunctive relief are met. See generally Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 93 (1971) (separate opinion).
Similarly, the availability of declaratory relief in Michigan courts on appellants’ federal claims is wholly beside the point. In Zwickler v. Koota, supra, at 248, we said:
“In thus [establishing jurisdiction for the exercise of] federal judicial power, Congress imposed the duty upon all levels of the federal judiciary to give due respect to a suitor’s choice of a federal forum for the hearing and decision of his federal constitutional claims. Plainly, escape from that duty is not permissible merely because state courts also have the solemn responsibility, equally with the federal courts, '. . . to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States . . . ,’ Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624, 637.”
Compare, e. g., Askew v. Hargrave, 401 U. S. 476 (1971). The possibility that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may upon Michigan’s application forbid the discharge of even treated sewage in state waters and the asserted absence of present conflict between the Michigan requirements and other state laws are equally immaterial. Just as they do not diminish the immediacy and reality of appellants’ grievance, they do not call for abstention.
The last factor relied on by the District Court — the publication of proposed federal standards that might be considered by Michigan in the interpretation and enforcement of its statute — does, however, point toward considerations that fall within the “special circumstances” permitting abstention. The paradigm case for abstention arises when the challenged state statute is susceptible of “a construction by the state courts that would avoid or modify the [federal] constitutional question. Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167. Compare Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360.” Zwickler v. Koota, supra, at 249. More fully, we have explained:
“Where resolution of'the federal constitutional question is dependent upon, or may be materially altered by, the determination of an uncertain issue of state law, abstention may be proper in order to avoid unnecessary friction in federal-state relations, interference with important state functions, tentative decisions on questions of state law, and premature constitutional adjudication. . . . The doctrine . . . contemplates that deference to state court adjudication only be made where the issue of state law is uncertain.” Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528, 534 (1965).
That is precisely the circumstance presented here. The Michigan Watercraft Pollution Control Act of 1970 has not been construed in any Michigan court, and, as appellants themselves suggest in attacking it for vagueness, its terms are far from clear in particulars that go to the foundation of their grievance. It is indeed only an assertion by appellees that the Michigan law proscribes the discharge of even treated sewage in state waters. Section 3 (2) of the Act does state that “[i]t is unlawful to discharge . . . sewage . . . from a recreational, domestic or foreign watercraft used for pleasure or for [commerce] . . . ,” and § 4 (2) does require vessels equipped with toilet facilities to have sewage storage devices. Yet §3(1) seemingly contemplates the discharge of treated sewage by merely prohibiting any person from emitting sewage '‘which [renders] the water unsightly, noxious or otherwise unwholesome so as to be detrimental to the public health or welfare or to the enjoyment of the water for recreational purposes.” Moreover, § 11 provides that “[t]o be enforceable, the provision [of the Act] or the rule [presumably promulgated thereunder] shall be of such flexibility that a watercraft owner, in carrying out the provision or rule, is able to maintain maritime safety requirements and comply with the federal marine and navigation laws and regulations.” Michigan has thus demonstrated concern that its pollution control requirements be sufficiently flexible to accord with federal law. We do not know, of course, how far Michigan courts will go in interpreting the requirements of the state Watercraft Pollution Control Act in light of the federal Water Quality Improvement Act and the constraints of the United States Constitution. But we are satisfied that authoritative resolution of the ambiguities in the Michigan law is sufficiently likely to avoid or significantly modify the federal questions appellants raise to warrant abstention, particularly in view of the absence of countervailing considerations that we have found compelling in prior decisions. See, e. g., Harman v. Forssenius, supra, at 537; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 378-379 (1964).
In affirming the decision of the District Court to abstain, we, of course, intimate no view on the merits of appellants’ claims. We do, however, vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court with directions to retain jurisdiction pending institution by appellants of appropriate proceedings in Michigan courts. See Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S., at 244 n. 4.
It is so ordered.
Appellants also contend that the Michigan law is pre-empted by the Steamboat Inspection Acts of Feb. 28, 1871, 16 Stat. 440, and of May 27, 1936, 49 Stat. 1380, as amended, 46 TJ. S. C. § 361 et seq. An amicus curiae, moreover, presses the contention, suggested in appellants’ complaint, that the Michigan law conflicts with the United States-Canadian Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, 36 Stat. 2448, as well as enters into the domain of foreign affairs constitutionally reserved to the National Government. See Brief of Dominion Marine Association amicus curiae.
The authority to administer the Water Quality Improvement Act, originally lodged in the Secretary of the Interior, was transferred to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, set out in the Appendix to Title 5 of the United States Code.
“Sewage” is defined under the Act to mean “human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes.” 84 Stat. 100, 33 U. S. C. § 1163 (a)(6).
A notice of proposed standards was, however, published on May 12, 1971. See 36 Fed. Reg. 8739.
The District Court also noted that “[w]ith regard to pre-emption, the Supreme Court in Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 TJ. S. Ill [1965], held that Supremacy Clause cases are not within the purview of a three judge court.” 336 F. Supp., at 253. Appellants correctly point out that in reinstating that rule, Wickham made clear that a three-judge court is the proper forum for all claims against the challenged statute so long as there is a nonfrivolous constitutional claim that constitutes a justiciable controversy and warrants, on allegations of irreparable harm, consideration for injunctive relief. See 382 U. S., at 122 n. 17, 125. Indeed, that was the explicit holding in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73, 80-81 (1960), re-affirming prior cases. It is clear that appellants’ complaint satisfies this test if the constitutional issues raised are justiciable controversies. Since we hold, infra, that they are, three-judge court jurisdiction exists over all of appellants’ claims, including the Supremacy Clause issues.
The Michigan authorities have so far generally refrained from prosecution because adequate land-based pump-out facilities are not yet available to service vessels equipped with sewage storage devices. See infra, at 507-508. After oral argument here, the Solicitor General of Michigan informed us “that local officials in Cheboygan County, Michigan, have ‘ticketed’ a Coast Guard Captain for discharging sewage into the waters of the Great Lakes.” However, “to assure the Court that Michigan will not depart from the representations it has made to the Court,” the Solicitor General stated that he is “taking immediate steps to quash the charge or have the local court stay its hand until” the decision here.
Michigan has filed an application with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for a prohibition under 33 U. S. C. § 1163 (f) on the discharge of any sewage, treated or untreated, into all of the State’s waters subject to the Water Quality Improvement Act. The Administrator has indicated that any no-discharge regulation issued will not become effective before the effective date of the initial standards promulgated under § 1163 (b) (1). See 36 Fed. Reg. 8739-8740. Appellants argue that the Administrator’s authority to issue no-discharge regulations is narrow and could not encompass a complete prohibition on discharge throughout Michigan’s navigable waters. Since we find, infra, that the possibility of such a prohibition is immaterial to the issues answered here, we need not now decide this question.
Appellants contend in this regard that the laws of other States dealing with the discharge of sewage are critically different from the Michigan statute in various respects. This question, too, we need not address, since we find, infra, that the presence or absence of conflicting state requirements is irrelevant.
See n. 4, supra.
Although appellees took an equivocal position on this question in oral argument here, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 36-39, the District Court below expressly found such a concession, see 336 F. Supp., at 255, and appellees repeated the concession in opposing appellants’ jurisdictional statement. See Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss or Affirm 11. In any event, the terms of the Water Quality Improvement Act are clear that pre-emption occurs at least when the initial federal standards promulgated under the Act become effective. See 33 U. S. C. § 1163 (f), quoted in part, supra, at 503-504. See also 36 Fed. Reg. 8739-8740.
Appellees stressed in oral argument here that “[t]he provision for pump-out facilities is no great mechanical accomplishment.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 35. This only reinforces the conclusion that appellants must, according to Michigan authorities, quickly get into a position to comply with the Michigan statute.
In coming to a contrary conclusion, the District Court relied heavily on Public Serv. Comm’n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U. S. 237 (1952), where we held that declaratory relief was inappropriate in behalf of a carrier seeking a determination that its intrastate transportation constituted interstate commerce. The District Court’s reliance on that decision was misplaced. As the Court said in California Comm’n v. United States, 355 U. S. 534, 538-539 (1958), Wycoff Co. was a case “where a carrier sought relief in a federal court against a state commission in order 'to guard against the possibility,’ [344 U. S.], at 244, that the Commission would assume jurisdiction.” Here, as in California Comm’n, the confrontation between the parties has already arisen, and “[t]he controversy is present and concrete .” 355 U. S., at 539.
The question of abstention, of course, is entirely separate from the question of granting declaratory or injunctive relief. See generally Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969); Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241 (1967).
We assume that these provisions apply to commercial watercraft, though even this is not textually clear. Section 3 (2) in terms applies only to “recreational” vessels, while § 4 (2) — despite the expansive definition of “watercraft” in § 2 (g) — could be similarly limited in light of §4 (1), which governs only “pleasure or recreational watercraft.”
The .Michigan courts may also see fit to interpret the Michigan statute in light of the other Supremacy Clause arguments that have have been made in this case. See n. 1, supra.
In the latter regard, see, e. g., Government Employees v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364 (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:
|
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 Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit in admiralty against British underwriters on a war-risk policy issued to cover the Calmar Corporation’s S. S. Portmar for a voyage, in the winter of 1941-1942, from the United States to a port or ports in the Philippine Islands and return to an Atlantic or Pacific port in the United States. After the voyage had commenced Australia was duly substituted for the Philippine Islands as the outbound destination. The Portmar was under charter to the United States. This suit, based on damage inflicted by enemy aircraft, was tried together with a libel against the United States claiming recovery for the same damage as well as additional charter hire. See post, p. 446. The District Court held the underwriters liable for a constructive total loss of the vessel. 103 F. Supp. 243. The Court of Appeals reversed. 197 F. 2d 795. We granted certiorari, 344 U. S. 853, because wide use, so the Court was advised, of the clauses of this policy makes their construction, a necessary issue here, a matter of more than individual concern.
Pursuant to the charter agreement between the Calmar Corporation and the United States, the Portmar left San Francisco for Manila on November 28, 1941. She carried high-octane gasoline, ammunition and other military supplies and equipment. She was some 600 miles southeast of the Hawaiian Islands on December 7, when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Her master at that time put her on a southerly course so as to avoid the combat area. On December 11, United States naval routing orders were received by radio on the Portmar. From that day until she was damaged and abandoned, a little over two months later, her every movement was in obedience to orders issued by competent United States and Australian authorities. The Portmar, which flew the American flag, was subject to these orders.
On December 30, the Portmar arrived at Sydney, Australia. Without being permitted to discharge cargo, she was dispatched up the coast to Brisbane. There her cargo was unloaded and sorted, part of it was put back on her, and she was sent almost half-way around the island to Port Darwin. She had been in Brisbane a week and had left on January 9, 1942. She was in Darwin on the 19th and lay at anchor till the 31st, waiting to dock and discharge cargo. This she then did, in part. Still carrying two thousand drums of her original load of gasoline, she left on February 4 for a relatively short trip across Joseph Bonaparte Gulf to Wyndham, where she arrived on the 8th. She returned empty to Darwin on the 12th. She then took aboard troops with equipment and armament and joined an exceedingly perilous expedition to Koepang, on the Island of Timor, some 500-odd miles northwest of Darwin. This expedition ran into heavy air attacks and turned back. On the 18th of February, the Portmar was at Darwin again, awaiting her turn to dock and discharge the personnel and equipment she had taken on. While thus at anchor on the morning of the 19th, she underwent bombing and strafing by Japanese airplanes and sustained the damage which forced her master to beach her and caused him to abandon her.
Article 2.17 of the charter agreement under which the Portmar sailed provided that her owners might obtain war-risk insurance, to be paid for by the United States. Before commencement of the voyage, Calmar took out the war-risk policy now in question on the hull and machinery of the Portmar, valued at $860,000. This policy insured “only against the risks of war, strikes, riots and civil commotions.” It was assembled — that seems an appropriate word — by superimposing on the age-old Lloyd’s form layer upon layer of warranties and riders. Warranties free the underwriters from obligations imposed by riders, and subsequent riders then reimpose obligations thus avoided.
“Touching the Adventures and Perils which we the Assurers are contented to bear and do take upon us in this Voyage,” the basic Lloyd’s policy states, “they are, of the Seas, Men-of-War . . . Enemies . . . Takings at Sea, Arrests, Restraints and Detainments of all Kings, Princes and People . . . .” The policy is then “warranted free from . . . capture, seizure, arrest, restraint or detainment, or the consequences thereof ... or any taking of the Vessel, by requisition or otherwise . . . also from all consequences of hostilities or warlike operations . . . .” This warranty is known as the capture and seizure war-rantyv It is superseded by a war-risk rider, which provides:
“It is agreed that this insurance covers only those risks which would be covered by the attached policy ... in the absence of the C. & S. warranty . . . but which are excluded by that warranty.
“This insurance is also subject, however, to the following warranties and additional clauses:—
“The Adventures and Perils Clause shall be construed as including the risks of piracy, civil war, revolution, rebellion or insurrection or civil strife arising therefrom, floating and/or stationary mines and/or torpedoes whether derelict or not and/or military or naval aircraft . . . and warlike operations and the enforcement of sanctions by members of the League of Nations . . . but excluding arrest . . . under customs or quarantine regulations, and similar arrests, restraints or detainments not arising from actual or impending hostilities or sanctions.”
A further warranty, known as the free of British capture warranty, carves a specific exception out of the war-risk rider. It holds the underwriters
“free of claims arising from Capture, Seizure, Arrest, Restraint, Detainment, Requisition, Nationalization or Condemnation by or under the authority of the government of Great Britain or any of its dominions ... or allies, or by any forces acting in cooperation with or under the control of them or any of them.”
But a saving clause, following immediately, provides that
“unless the insured Vessel is condemned this warranty shall not exclude losses otherwise covered by this policy which are caused by gunfire, torpedoes, bombs, mines or other implements of war, or by stranding, sinking, burning or collision, provided such losses would not be covered by a marine insurance policy (in the form hereto attached) warranted free of claims arising from Capture, Seizure or Detention.”
Construing such conglomerate provisions requires a skill not unlike that called for in the decipherment of obscure palimpsest texts. A judicial sigh recently uttered at the seat of Lloyd’s evokes a sympathetic echo. “Freight insurance entered into on the old form of marine insurance policy with deletions or additions to adapt the form to the intended contract [has] almost invariably given rise to difficulties, and the present case [is] no exception.” Mr. Justice Sellers in Atlantic Maritime Co. v. Gibbon, [1953] 1 All E. R. 893, 899. One envies not merely the perceptiveness of Lord Mansfield in matters of commercial law but his genial means of informing himself. We cannot resort to the elastic procedure by which Mansfield sought enlightenment at dinners with “knowing and considerable merchants,” nor have we any Elder Brethren of Trinity House to help us. To be sure, we have in this case the benefit of the views of the most experienced of admiralty judges. Considering the scanty contact this Court has these days with maritime law, we pay especial deference to the weighty judgment before us. But since it is before us, we cannot abdicate the duty to decide and must in the end exercise our own judgment however unsure it be.
Assuming that the policy was in force when the Port-mar was attacked, there is no doubt whatever that the underwriters would be liable for the damage under the basic adventures and perils clause taken alone. Cf. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 267 U. S. 76. The capture and seizure warranty, on the other hand, would, of course, hold the underwriters free. We understand the war-risk rider to provide as follows: Risks which are covered by the adventures and perils clause, but which are excluded by the capture and seizure warranty, and only such risks, remain covered. These risks include, in the language of the adventures and perils clause, “Restraints and Detainments of all Kings, Princes and People,” or, in that of the capture and seizure warranty, “restraint or detainment, or the consequences thereof . . . or any taking of the Vessel, by requisition or otherwise.” The free of British capture warranty would, in turn, again very likely avoid liability in this case. But the war-risk rider makes the loss of the Portmar one which is “otherwise covered by this policy” within the terms of the saving clause in the British capture warranty. The loss is “otherwise covered by this policy” because it is insured against elsewhere within it, that is, in the war-risk rider. Since the Portmar had not been “condemned” when she was damaged by “implements of war,” the saving clause thus reinstates, in this case, coverage avoided by the free of British capture warranty, still assuming, of course, that the policy was in force at the time of the loss.
The underwriters contend that the phrase “losses otherwise covered by this policy” in the saving clause refers to losses which the policy would cover if they were not the consequences of an Allied restraint or detainment. A loss such as that of the Portmar, they say, is not otherwise covered because it followed a deviation which, had it not occurred pursuant to naval orders, would not be excusable and would have terminated coverage. The phrase in its context precludes such sophistical reading. It is plainly intended, together with the proviso at the end restricting the clause to losses which the capture and seizure warranty would exclude and which the war-risk rider therefore takes in, to make certain and doubly certain that the coverage of the policy as a whole is in no event enlarged. Moreover, if the sense were given to the “otherwise covered” phrase which the underwriters press upon us, the saving clause as a whole would be left quite devoid of any meaning. It would then uselessly preserve coverage only for losses which are securely covered anyway, despite the presence of the free of British capture warranty.
The underwriters resort to a second argument concerning the saving clause. They contend, not quite consistently with the earlier argument, that the clause was meant to save losses which occur while a vessel is under certain Allied restraints, limited in number, but not under others. The underwriters, upon the trial, offered to prove as much by an expert witness. No more need be said than that to vary the terms of the saving clause so as to make it mean what the expert in the District Court said it meant — which on its face it cannot mean — would be to reform the contract, and that the requirements of the equitable doctrine of reformation are not met in this case.
We thus read the provisions of this policy as insuring against a loss such as that of the Porimar, though it be the consequence of seizure by a British ally. So, reasoning substantially along these lines, did the District Court, and it proceeded to hold the underwriters liable. The Court of Appeals assumed that the “labyrinth of verbiage, within which lurks whatever contract was made, is to be understood to agree that, although the ship might at the time be under the ‘restraint of princes,’ the policy should cover her loss . . . .” But it held that “the policy was no longer in force when the loss occurred, the insured voyage having before then come to an end and the policy with it.” 197 F. 2d., at 796. The voyage had ended, the court said, because the dominion exercised over the Port-mar by Allied authorities was complete, and was very probably intended to continue indefinitely. The policy, in turn, was no longer in force because it was written for a voyage and could not outlast it, any more than a voyage charter would. Precisely as frustration of the voyage would end the latter, so it releases an underwriter from further liability.
The facts from which the Court of Appeals deduced that the detainment of the Portmar was to be prolonged indefinitely are these. When the Portmar reached Sydney, the Japanese had a working naval command of the Pacific, and Australia was threatened with invasion. The need for shipping was dire, as the use made of the Portmar herself shows. Indeed, after she was damaged and beached, military authorities salved her and patched her up hastily. The United States eventually requisitioned title to her, and she was used till finally destroyed. An American colonel in charge of transportation in Australia when the Portmar was there testified at the trial to the serious shortage of shipping, which, he said, continued throughout the year 1942. But as late as January 19, when the Portmar was in Darwin, the owners learned from an agent of the United States Maritime Commission that she would load chrome ore late in February and could be expected in Philadelphia in April. Australia was not, of course, the only place where there was a dearth of shipping at the time, and there is nothing in the record to show that a colonel on the spot had the last word as to the future use of an ocean-going vessel; if there were, it would strain credulity. Two further points are to be noted. First, when the Army salved and used the Portmar after she was damaged, she was no longer in any condition to make ocean voyages, and could not readily be returned to such a condition. And it was at that time that the United States formally requisitioned her — at that time for the first time. Second, there was testimony indicating that other vessels detained in Australia early in 1942 were held through the year. But there is no testimony that any vessels similar to the Portmar were so held. The witness — the Army colonel in charge — spoke of “[s]ome 21 small Dutch vessels.”
In point of time, the Court of Appeals fixed frustration of the voyage as having taken place at Brisbane, during the period of January 5 to 9, 1942. And so the underwriters contend here. Part of the Portmar’s cargo, which was unloaded at Brisbane for sorting, was, as we have seen, put back on her there, and she was sent with it to Darwin. It can hardly be maintained that the vessel’s trips along the Australian coast after Brisbane, while she was still carrying parts of her original cargo, or the trip from Sydney to Brisbane, constituted a departure from her voyage, whether or not excusable. For the voyage specified in the Portmar’s insurance policy was not to a single port as the outbound destination, but to a “port or ports” and back, “via port or ports in any order.” That being so, we cannot find that the voyage ended at Brisbane on the theory that it was there that dominion over the Portmar by requisitioning authorities became complete and hence there that the intention to cause her to abandon her voyage was formed or manifested. It is not maintained, nor could it be, that an explicit decision, objectively provable, not to allow the Portmar to continue on her voyage was ever reached by the authorities, and there is no showing whatever that her owners or charterer had any intention of discontinuing the voyage. On the evidence, this is not a case in which a change of voyage, releasing the underwriters, can be shown before the vessel is overtly employed in a manner inconsistent with the purpose or route of the original voyage. Compare Thellusson v. Ferguson, 1 Doug. 361, with Tasker v. Cunninghame, 1 Bligh 87, and Wooldridge v. Boydell, 1 Doug. 16; see 1 Arnould, Marine Insurance (13th ed., by Lord Chorley 1950), §§ 381, 385. Consequently, dominion or no, the Portmar was covered by her insurance at Brisbane and later, till she started on the Koepang expedition, or just before, as she is conceded to have been covered before Brisbane, while under equally complete dominion of naval authorities. Cf. Rickards v. Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co., [1942] A. C. 50, 80.
The Koepang expedition was undoubtedly a venture inconsistent with the voyage specified in the Portmar’s insurance. We are prepared to assume, though of course we do not decide, that the Koepang trip would have terminated, on grounds of abandonment of voyage, the coverage of a policy warranted free of war risks or of one warranted completely free of British capture, and that, under such a policy, had the Portmar subsequently sustained damage not attributable to war causes, cf., e. g., Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 340 U. S. 54, there would have been no recovery. We assume that in those circumstances the Court of Appeals could have inferred as it did, on the basis of the Koepang venture and of the military situation, that the Portmar was to be retained indefinitely under requisition, and that her voyage was therefore over. But the point of this policy is that here the underwriters, by virtue of the saving clause, did insure against risks of British requisition. They insured, in other words, against consequences of a forced interruption of the voyage, which must necessarily throw into doubt the chances of completing the voyage as planned. Circumstances which may make out a change of voyage and cause termination of coverage under a policy warranted free of risks arising from seizure need not do so under one of insurance against such risks. In one as in the other, if they are both written for a voyage, there is an implied warranty that no different voyage will be undertaken. But it is a warranty which must be construed in light of the express provisions of the policy, and which may mean different things in different policies.
If, in the circumstances of this case, an owner who bought insurance against damage resulting from Allied requisition and one who bought a policy excluding such losses entirely stand on no different footing in respect of a sovereign’s intention to retain their vessels indefinitely, they hardly stand on a different footing in any substantial respect. And the one received very little, if anything, more than the other. For inferences of permanence, as strong as those in this case, will surely be permissible from most every requisition by a friendly sovereign for military uses. It is hard to imagine a military situation serious enough to lead a commander in the field to take it upon himself to requisition a friendly vessel, which is not sufficiently serious to make that requisition of presumptively indefinite, or at least uncertain, duration in his mind. Thus the difference between a policy containing a free of British capture warranty with a saving clause, such as we have in this case, and one without a like saving clause narrows down, under the holding of the Court of Appeals, to this: On the first policy, underwriters may be held liable for losses attributable to a small class of Allied restraints which are by their nature limited in duration, the most common example being detainment for inspection. On the second policy, underwriters may not be so held. This, of course, is exactly the result which would flow from the construction placed on the saving clause by the underwriters’ expert witness, a construction contrary to that assumed by the Court of Appeals to be the correct one. As to other restraints, the Court of Appeals would normally allow no recourse against the underwriters to either owner, the one who bought the first type of policy or the one who bought the second; to one on one theory, to the other on another; to one because he expressly agreed himself to bear all risks arising from Allied restraints, to the other despite the fact that he paid for insurance against such risks and could have had every expectation, on the face of the policy written for him, that he had effectively obtained it. Thus a significant part of the coverage of war-risk insurance, which is purchased separately, over and above ordinary insurance, and at great expense, would be rendered nugatory.
The provisions of the policy contain no time limitations on the detainments against which they insure. The District Court consequently, although recognizing that “[i]ndeed, that is broad coverage!”, felt constrained to hold that coverage would extend throughout the period of a detainment, no matter what its nature, and past the time when the voyage insured for had definitely been frustrated. The court thus, in effect, read the implied warranty concerning changes of voyage as referring, in this policy, to voluntary changes of voyage only. Rickards v. Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co., [1942] A. C. 50, may support the position of the District Court. It is persuasive authority, since “[t]here are special reasons for keeping in harmony with the marine insurance laws of England, the great field of this business . . . .” Queen Ins. Co. v. Globe Ins. Co., 263 U. S. 487, 493. But we are not required to accept the broad ground on which the District Court rested. It is not contended here that anything done by any officer or official on the scene or elsewhere before the Portmar was damaged made it explicit — and now objectively provable — that she would be detained indefinitely or even for such a period of time as might be thought to postpone her return voyage unreasonably. Such an explicit decision might at least more likely have come to the prompt attention of the owners, whereas in its absence, as here, no owner, whether on the scene or not, could so much as make an informed guess concerning the fate of the voyage. We do not decide that case, but we do hold that if a policy such as this is to provide any appreciable and safely predictable protection over and above that of a policy which does not insure at all against consequences of Allied de-tainments, coverage cannot be said to have ended before an unambiguous, objectively provable decision has been made by the requisitioning sovereign to cause abandonment of the voyage.
A number of subsidiary questions in the case were all decided in favor of the owners by the District Court. The most important is raised by the contention that the vessel was never a constructive total loss and was not validly abandoned as such. The Court of Appeals, in view of its disposition of the case, found it unnecessary to consider any of these questions. They are not related to the major issue in the case, and so we remit them to the Court of Appeals.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated and the cause remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Minton dissents for the reasons stated in the opinion of Circuit Judge Learned Hand, 197 F. 2d 795.
Not until January 19 did word reach Calmar that the Port-mar had been diverted to Australia from the original course she had set for Manila. This was not due to any negligence on the part of the master, who throughout the adventure made sturdy and insistent efforts to keep in touch with his owners. It was simply the result of security regulations imposed by the proper authorities, and of difficulties of communication. When Calmar received this news, it chose to act under a clause in the policy providing:
“Held covered in the event of any breach of warranty as to date of sailing or deviation or change of voyage, provided prompt notice be given these Insurers when such facts are known to the Assured and/or their managers and an additional premium paid if required.” Calmar communicated the change in destination to the underwriters. The latter agreed to hold the Portmar covered by letter dated February 6, 1942. This agreement was retroactive. No additional premium was required.
“The truth is that [the] law of marine insurance is nothing more than a collection of rules for the construction of the ancient form of policy and such additions as are from time to time annexed to it. The ancient form dates back at least to the sixteenth century, and it is a document which the late Sir Frederick Pollock characterized, with justifiable asperity, as ‘clumsy, imperfect, and obscure.’ . . .
“Innumerable clauses have from time to time been devised to supplement the ancient form. Unhappily tradition seems to have caused them also in very many cases to be ‘clumsy, imperfect, and obscure,’ .... Oddly enough, the tradition has even infected the Legislature with a microbe of inaccuracy. In 1746 an Act . . . made re-insurance illegal, except in the case where 'the assurer shall be insolvent, become a bankrupt, or die.’ It is inconceivable that an insolvent underwriter should desire to re-insure, and obviously the evil aimed at was double insurance by the assured. ‘Re-insurance,’ however, had then its present well known meaning, and the draftsman of the Act used the wrong word in order to maintain the tradition of obscurity.” MacKinnon, L. J., in Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co. v. Rickards, [1941] 1 K. B. 225, 246-247.
Lewis v. Rucker, 2 Burr. 1167, 1168.
“Lord Mansfield converted an occasional into a regular institution, and trained a corps of jurors as a permanent liaison between law and commerce. He won their confidence by social, as by professional, condescension, ‘not only conversing freely with them in court, but inviting them to dine with him.’ ” Fifoot, Lord Mansfield, 105, quoting from 2 Campbell, Lives of Chief Justices, 407.
The war-risk rider is not without its slight ambiguity. The word “only” in its first paragraph could be read to indicate that that paragraph simply sets the outer limit of the coverage but is not itself an insuring clause, that is, does not reinstate any of the coverage of the adventures and perils clause. We do not understand the underwriters to urge such a reading, and we do not think they could reasonably do so. Following its first paragraph, the rider insures against some risks not specifically mentioned in the adventures and perils clause, and also excludes from coverage certain detainments not connected with “actual or impending hostilities.” If the first paragraph of the rider is not to be read as an insuring clause, why is the subsequent insuring clause referred to in the rider as an “additional” one? What sense is there in singling out as risks to be insured against exclusively those risks which might be thought not to be clearly covered in the adventures and perils clause? Why should war-risk insurance, purchased at a time of impending war and covering “only against the risks of war, strikes, riots and civil commotions,” insure comprehensively against the perils of civil war but not against those of war itself? Finally, why should insurance be written in language construing a non-operative clause ?
The final proviso in the saving clause — that the losses must be such as would not be covered by a policy in which the capture and seizure warranty is in full force — is automatically complied with once it is established that the loss in this case is “otherwise covered by this policy.” For it is “otherwise covered” by virtue of the war-risk rider, which in turn covers only losses excluded by the capture and seizure warranty. These riders and warranties, which, when assembled, constitute the policy, are often independently developed. That may explain overlapping provisions such as these. Moreover, it is not hard to understand why extreme caution is exercised in making certain that only war risks are insured against by war-risk riders and saving clauses. For war-risk insurance is often — as it was in this case-written separately from ordinary marine insurance, and it is important to exclude losses, caused by collision or stranding, for example, which are attributable to the ordinary hazards of navigation.
See n. 5, supra.
The witness, William D. Winter, chairman t of the board of a leading marine insurance company in the United States, manager, for a number of years, of the American Marine Insurance Syndicate, and a former president of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters, testified as follows:
“During the war . . . Great Britain and her Allies took vessels into control ports in order to see whether they had contraband . . . on them. The ship at that point . . . was in the control of the Government authorities, or it was captured. . . . [G]oing into those control ports, [was] a very dangerous operation ....
“The cases had been settled, that the underwriters were not liable. The underwriters didn’t think that was doing their part of their job. So they constructed . . . this clause to go on hull policies . . . to show that they were willing, notwithstanding the fact that this vessel had been captured, nevertheless, if in entering a control port she was blown up by a mine, or if she went ashore . . . they would not refuse the claim because of that happening. It was to save the assured from something over which he had no control in a very limited situation, where the British Government had not captured it for the purpose of, at that point, condemning the boat because we say that if condemned, we were not liable, but for the purpose of finding out whether the boat, perhaps, should be condemned, and the underwriters felt that under those circumstances it was their duty to go ahead with their assured and take care of this unusual situation. But it was always within the framework of that voyage, of that particular incident of the voyage. The words are general, I agree . . . .”
The District Court heard this testimony subject to a later ruling on its admissibility, based on a finding that the language of the free of British capture warranty was or was not ambiguous. The court found that the language was not, and ruled that Mr. Winter’s testimony was inadmissible.
To be sure, going from Brisbane to Darwin instead of discharging all cargo at Sydney or Brisbane meant exposing the vessel to greater risk. The same may be said of returning to an Atlantic rather than a Pacific port in the United States. The policy permitted either. The underwriters could have avoided all these potential additional risks by writing a policy for a voyage from one specific port to another and back. They did not. Nor can the underwriters complain that in going from Brisbane to Darwin the Portmar hugged the coast, thus increasing her sailing time and, in one sense, again, the risk. For she did it for her safety, just as she justifiably turned south on the day Pearl Harbor was attacked.
It was a deviation, but it is worth noting that, in view precisely of the fact that the Portmar was under the complete and inescapable dominion of competent naval authorities, it was excusable, and hence not such a deviation as might, without more, release the underwriters from all further obligations. This would probably be true even had the Portmar’s policy been warranted free of all war risks, in which case the Koepang trip would have been a deviation occasioned by a peril not insured against. Cf. Robinson v. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 89, and Scott v. Thompson, 1 Bos. & Pul. (N. R.) 181; see 1 Arnould, supra, § 435. But cf. Aktiebolaget M. Bank v. American Merchant Marine Ins. Co., 241 N. Y. 197, 149 N. E. 830. Not unless the Koepang trip marked a permanent change of voyage, an abandonment of the original one, could it be said that the coverage of even such a policy had undoubtedly come to an end.
See n. 7, supra.
In the Rickards case, the House of Lords dealt with voyage policies on cargo, insuring against detainments. No free of British capture warranty was involved. Upon declaration of war with Germany in September 1939, the masters of the three vessels in question put into neutral ports and then, under orders of the German Government, of which they were subjects, proceeded to run the blockade and try to make German ports. This constituted abandonment of the voyages insured for. One of the vessels made a German port. The other two were intercepted and, again under orders from the German Government, scuttled by their masters to avoid capture. The House of Lords held that the abandonment of the voyages, occasioned by restraint of princes — i. e., the orders of the German Government, which were binding on the masters — did not relieve the underwriters of liability. The underwriters here attempt to distinguish the Rickards case on the ground that it dealt with cargo rather than hull insurance, and on other grounds. We do not pass on the validity of these grounds of distinction. But the Rickards case does definitely dispose of an argument based on the following clause, which appeared in the Rickards policies and which is present in the policy before us now: “Warranted free of any claim based upon loss of or frustration of the insured voyage or adventure caused by arrests, restraints or detainments, of kings, princes, or peoples.” It was urged in Rickards that this warranty means that whenever damage or loss resulting from a restraint frustrates the voyage, the underwriters are relieved of any liability arising from that restraint. It is hence unnecessary to decide whether or not frustration of the voyage before the damage occurred ended coverage. The simple answer to this argument was that the claim made was not “based upon loss of or frustration of the insured voyage”; it was based upon loss of the cargo, as in this case it is based upon loss of the vessel. Of course, whenever as a consequence of a restraint a vessel or cargo is lost, or even severely damaged, the voyage is frustrated. If the frustration warranty applies in such cases, therefore, its effect is to hold the underwriters free of liability for any total loss, indeed, for most losses, resulting from detainment. We are authoritatively told that the clause was not intended to achieve such a sweeping result. See the observations of Viscount Maugham, [1942] A. C., at 72-73, of Lord Porter, id., at 106, and of MacKinnon, L. J., [1941] 1 K. B., at 252.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, a Negro convicted and sentenced to death for murdering a white man, attacks his conviction as violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. He claims that, as a result of a long-established practice in the county of his conviction, Negroes were arbitrarily and systematically excluded from sitting on the grand jury which indicted him and the petit jury which convicted him. The State answers that the claim comes too late, having been asserted for the first time by a motion for a new trial. Code of Ala. (1958 Recomp.), Tit. 15, §§ 278, 279; Ball v. State, 252 Ala. 686, 689, 42 So. 2d 626, 629. Admittedly, the point was not raised until the filing of the motion for a new trial, but the trial judge permitted the petitioner to proceed on his motion. However, the judge sustained objections to all questions concerning the alleged jury discrimination and denied the motion. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the conviction, finding that petitioner’s claim of jury discrimination was not supported by any evidence. We granted certiorari, 375 U. S. 893.
Petitioner was convicted of the first degree murder of a white mechanic, the apparent motive being robbery. There were no witnesses to the killing and the evidence of guilt was circumstantial, based largely upon expert testimony given by the State’s toxicologist. Petitioner was represented by court-appointed counsel at trial but he obtained new counsel after conviction. In his motion for a new trial petitioner alleged that “Negroes qualified for jury service in Greene County, Alabama are arbitrarily, systematically and intentionally excluded from jury duty in violation of rights and privileges guaranteed defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
The petitioner does not attack the reasonableness of Alabama’s procedural requirement that objections to the composition of juries must be made before trial. Nor does he question the validity of such procedures as a state ground upon which refusal to consider the question might be based. However, in this case the judge granted petitioner a hearing on his motion for a new trial and permitted him to call two Circuit Solicitors as witnesses to prove his allegations of discrimination. Nonetheless, the judge sustained objections to all questions concerning systematic discrimination on the ground that the point was not raised prior to trial. On automatic appeal the Supreme Court of Alabama found that the trial judge had afforded petitioner “an opportunity on the hearing of the motion for a new trial to adduce evidence of any systematic exclusion . . . .” However, it found further that “none was introduced other than an affidavit of appellant’s mother that her son was indicted by a grand jury composed of white men, and tried and convicted by a petit jury composed of twelve white men.”
It appears clear that the motion for a new trial alleged a practice of systematic exclusion which, if proved, would entitle petitioner to a new trial. Arnold v. North Carolina, 376 U. S. 773 (1964); Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U. S. 584 (1958); Reece v. Georgia, 350 U. S. 85 (1955) ; Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475 (1954); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1879). Here petitioner’s counsel failed to raise the issue before trial; but the Alabama Supreme Court, apparently acting under the enlightened procedure of its automatic appeals statute, did not base its affirmance on this ground but considered the claim on the merits and held that the petitioner had not met his burden of establishing racial discrimination. The court concluded:
“No sufficient proof having been produced at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, or at any other state of the proceedings, it is clear appellant may not now complain. Therefore, we are left under no doubt that appellant’s point on systematic exclusion of Negroes from the jury rolls in Greene County is not well taken.”
Exercising its discretion to permit petitioner to attack the exclusion by motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court of Alabama decided petitioner’s constitutional claim on the merits. The judgment, therefore, “rested upon the State Supreme Court’s considered conclusion that the conviction resulting in the death sentence was not obtained in disregard of the protections secured to the petitioner by the Constitution of the United States.” Irvin v. Dowd, 359 U. S. 394, 404 (1959). Since the case comes here in that posture and the record shows that petitioner was not permitted to offer evidence to support his claim, the judgment of affirmance must fall. As in Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442 (1900), where the state court found that “the motion was but a mere tender of the issue, unaccompanied by any supporting testimony . . .'this Court must reverse on the ground that the defendant “offered to introduce witnesses to prove the allegations . . . and the court . . . declined to hear any evidence upon the subject . . . .” At 448-449.
In light of these considerations, the petitioner is now entitled to have his day in court on his allegations of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand and petit juries sitting in his case. The judgment is therefore reversed and the case remanded to the Supreme Court of Alabama for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
“ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: I can ask whether or not the law was complied with?
“COURT: Yes. The fact that the law was complied with, that is a general question, but the Court will sustain an objection to that because the courts have held repeatedly, the Supreme Court of Alabama and the Supreme Court of the United States, that you can not go into those matters unless they have been raised properly during the trial or in some proceedings prior thereto. That is the reason I asked you the question before. The case was tried by Mr. Boggs and the Court is familiar with it.
“ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: But I would like to get one or two of these questions in the record for the purpose of taking an exception to it.
“COURT: You may ask the questions, but the Court will have to sustain an objection to them.
“Q. Mr. Boggs, you were present when the Grand Jury, which indicted Johnny Coleman, was convened, were you not?
“A. I was.
“Q. How many persons were on that grand jury?
“A. Eighteen.
“Q. Were any negroes on that grand jury?
“SOLICITOR: I object to that, may it please the Court. It is an illegal mode of raising that which should have been raised by motion to quash the indictment.
“COURT: Sustain the objection.
“ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: I want to ask one more question, and then I won’t have any further question to ask — two more, your Honor.
“Q. Were there any negroes on the petit jury that tried this defendant?
“SOLICITOR: I object to that, may it please the Court, on the ground that it should have been properly raised by motion to quash the venire if the Fourteenth Amendment was to be taken advantage of in this matter.
“COURT: Sustain the objection.”
Code of Alabama (1958 Recomp.), Tit. 15, §382 (10):
“Hearing and determination in appellate court. — In all cases of automatic appeals the appellate court may consider, at its discretion, any testimony that was seriously prejudicial to the rights of the appellant, and may reverse thereon even though no lawful objection or exception was made thereto. The appellate court shall consider all of the testimony and if upon such consideration is of opinion the verdict is so decidedly contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to be wrong and unjust and that upon that ground a new trial should be had, the court shall enter an order of reversal of the judgment and grant a new trial, though no motion to that effect was presented in the court below.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this ease, we must decide whether approximately 1.8 million acres of land in northern Alaska, owned in fee simple by the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, is “Indian country.” We conclude that it is not, and we therefore reverse the judgment below.
I
The Village of Venetie, which is located in Alaska above the Arctic Circle, is home to the Neets’aii Gwieh’in Indians. In 1948, the Secretary of the Interior created a reservation for the Neets’aii Gwieh’in out of the land surrounding Venetie and another nearby tribal village, Arctic Village. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a. This land, which is about the size of Delaware, remained a reservation until 1971, when Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), a comprehensive statute designed to settle all land claims by Alaska Natives. See 85 Stat. 688, as amended, 43 U. S. C. § 1601 et seq.
In enacting ANCSA, Congress sought to end the sort of federal supervision over Indian affairs that had previously marked federal Indian policy. ANCSA’s text states that the settlement of the land claims was to be accomplished
“without litigation, with maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property, without establishing any permanent racially defined institutions, rights, privileges, or obligations, [and] without creating a reservation system or lengthy wardship or trusteeship.” § 1601(b) (emphasis added).
To this end, ANCSA revoked “the various reserves set aside ... for Native use” by legislative or Executive action, except for the Annette Island Reserve inhabited by the Met-lakatla Indians, and completely extinguished all aboriginal claims to Alaska land. §§ 1603, 1618(a). In return, Congress authorized the transfer of $962.5 million in state and federal funds and approximately 44 million acres of Alaska land to state-chartered private business corporations that were to be formed pursuant to the statute; all of the shareholders of these corporations were required to be Alaska Natives. §§ 1605, 1607, 1613. The ANCSA corporations received title to the transferred land in fee simple, and no federal restrictions applied to subsequent land transfers by them.
Pursuant to ANCSA, two Native corporations were established for the Neets’aii' Gwich’in, one in Venetie, and one in Arctic Village. In 1973, those corporations elected to make use of a provision in ANCSA allowing Native corporations to take title to former reservation lands set aside for Indians prior to 1971, in return for forgoing the statute’s monetary payments and transfers of nonreservation land. See § 1618(b). The United- States conveyed fee simple title to the land constituting the former Venetie Reservation to the two corporations as tenants in common; thereafter, the corporations transferred title to the land to the Native 'Village of Venetie Tribal Government (Tribe). ■
In 1986, the State of Alaska entered into a joint venture agreement with a private contractor for the construction of a public school in Yenetie, financed with state funds. In December 1986, the Tribe notified the contractor that it owed the Tribe approximately $161,000 in taxes for conducting business activities on the Tribe’s land. When both the contractor and the State, which under the joint venture agreement was the party responsible for paying the tax, refused to pay, the Tribe attempted to collect the tax in tribal court from the State, the school district, and the contractor.
The State then filed suit in Federal District Court for the District of Alaska and sought to enjoin collection of the tax. The Tribe moved to dismiss the State’s complaint, but the District Court denied the motion. It held that the Tribe’s AlNCSA lands were not Indian country within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. § 1151(b), which provides that Indian country includes all “dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States”; as a result, “the Trib[e] [did] not have the power to impose a tax upon non-members of the tribe such as the plaintiffs.” Alaska ex rel. Yukon Flats School Dist. v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, No. F87-0051 CV (HRH) (D. Alaska, Aug. 2, 1995), App. to Pet. for Cert. 79a.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 101 F. 3d 1286 (1996). The Court held that a six-factor balancing test should be used to interpret the term “dependent Indian communities” in § 1151(b), see id., at 1292-1293, and it summarized the requirements of that test as follows:
“[A] dependent Indian community requires a showing of federal set aside and federal superintendence. These requirements are to be construed broadly and should be informed in the particular case by a consideration of the following factors:
“(1) the nature of the area; (2) the relationship of the area inhabitants to Indian tribes and the federal government; (3) the established practice of government agen-eies toward that area; (4) the degree of federal ownership of and control over the area; (5) the degree of eohesiveness of the area inhabitants; and (6) the extent to which the area was set aside for the use, occupancy, and protection of dependent Indian peoples.” Id., at 1294.
Applying this test, the Court of Appeals concluded that the “federal set aside” and “federal superintendence” requirements were met and that the Tribe’s land was therefore Indian country. Id., at 1300-1802.
Judge Fernandez wrote separately. In his view, ANCSA was intended to be a departure from traditional Indian policy: “It attempted to preserve Indian tribes, but simultaneously attempted to sever them from the land; it attempted to leave them as sovereign entities for some purposes, but as sovereigns without territorial reach.” Id., at 1303. Noting that the majority’s holding called into question the status of all 44 million acres of land conveyed by ANCSA, he wrote that “[w]ere we writing on a clean slate, I would eschew the tribe’s request and would avoid creating the kind of chaos that the 92nd Congress wisely sought to avoid.” Id., at 1304. He nonetheless concluded that Ninth Circuit precedent required him to concur in the result. Ibid. We granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the Tribe’s land is Indian country. 521 U. S. 1103 (1997).
h — 4 H-i
A
“Indian country” is currently defined at 18 U. S. C. § 1151. In relevant part, the statute provides:
“[T]he term Indian country . . ..means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government. . . , (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.”
Although this definition by its terms relates only to federal criminal jurisdiction, we have recognized that it also generally applies to questions of civil jurisdiction such as the one at issue here. See DeCoteau v. District County Court for Tenth Judicial Dist., 420 U. S. 425, 427, n. 2 (1975).
Because ANCSA revoked the Venetie Reservation, and because no Indian allotments are at issue, whether the Tribe’s land is Indian country depends on whether it falls within the “dependent Indian communities” prong of the statute, § 1151(b). Since 18 U. S. C. § 1151 was enacted in 1948, we have not had an occasion to interpret the term “dependent Indian communities.” We now hold that it refers to a limited category of Indian lands that are neither reservations nor allotments, and that satisfy two requirements — first, they must have been set aside by the Federal Government for the use of the Indians as Indian land; second, they must be under federal superintendence. Our holding is based on our conclusion that in enacting § 1151, Congress codified these two requirements, which previously we had held necessary for a finding of “Indian country” generally.
Before § 1151 was enacted, we held in three cases that Indian lands that were not reservations could be Indian country and that the Federal Government could therefore exercise jurisdiction over them. See United States v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28 (1913); United States v. Pelican, 232 U. S. 442 (1914); United States v. McGowan, 302 U. S. 535 (1938). The first of these cases, United States v. Sandoval, posed the question whether the Federal Government could constitutionally proscribe the introduction of “intoxicating liquor” into the lands of the Pueblo Indians. 231 U. S., at 36. We rejected the contention that federal power could not extend to the Pueblo lands because, unlike Indians living on reservations, the Pueblos owned their lands in fee simple. Id., at 48. We indicated that the Pueblos’ title was not fee simple title in the commonly understood sense of the term. Congress had recognized the Pueblos’ title to their ancestral lands by statute, and Executive orders had reserved additional public lands “for the [Pueblos’] use and occupancy.” Id., at 39. In addition, Congress had enacted legislation with respect to the lands “in the exercise of the Government’s guardianship over th[e] [Indian] tribes and their affairs,” id., at 48, including federal restrictions on the lands’ alienation. Congress therefore could exercise jurisdiction over the Pueblo lands, under its general power over “all dependent Indian communities within its borders, whether within its original territory or territory subsequently acquired, and whether within or without the limits of a State.” Id., at 46.
In United States v. Pelican, we held that Indian allotments — parcels of land created out of a diminished Indian reservation and held in trust by the Federal Government for the benefit of individual Indians — were Indian country. 232 U. S., at 449. We stated that the original reservation was Indian country “simply because it had been validly set apart for the use of the Indians as such, under the superintendence of the Government Ibid, (emphasis added). After the reservation’s diminishment, the allotments continued to be Indian country, as “the lands remained Indian lands set apart for Indians under governmental care;... we are unable to find ground for the conclusion that they became other than Indian country through the distribution into separate holdings, the Government retaining control.” Ibid.
In United States v. McGowan, we held that the Reno Indian Colony in Reno, Nevada, was Indian country even though it was not a reservation. 302 U. S., at 539. We reasoned that, like Indian reservations generally, the colony had been “Validly set apart for the use of the Indians ... under the superintendence of the Government.’” Ibid, (quoting United States v. Pelican, supra, at 449) (emphasis deleted). We noted that the Federal Government had created the colony by purchasing the land with “funds appropriated by Congress” and that the Federal Government held the colony’s land in trust for the benefit of the Indians residing there. 302 U. S., at 537, and n. 4. We also emphasized that the Federal Government possessed the authority to enact “regulations and protective laws respecting th[e] [colony’s] territory,” id., at 539, which it had exercised in retaining title to the land and permitting the Indians to live there. For these reasons, a federal statute requiring the forfeiture of automobiles carrying “intoxicants” into the Indian country applied to the colony; we noted that the law was an example of the protections that Congress had extended to all “‘dependent Indian communities’” within the territory of the United States. Id., at 538 (quoting United States v. Sandoval, supra, at 46) (emphasis deleted).
In each of these cases, therefore, we relied upon a finding of both a federal set-aside and federal superintendence in concluding that the Indian lands in question constituted Indian country and that it was permissible for the Federal Government to exercise jurisdiction over them. Section 1151 does not purport to alter this definition of Indian country, but merely lists the three different categories of Indian country mentioned in our prior eases: Indian reservations, see Donnelly v. United States, 228 U. S. 243, 269 (1913); dependent Indian communities, see United States v. McGowan, supra, at 538-539; United States v. Sandoval, supra, at 46; and allotments, see United States v. Pelican, supra, at 449. The entire text of § 1151(b), and not just the term “dependent Indian communities,” is taken virtually verbatim from Sandoval, which language we later quoted in McGowan. See United States v. Sandoval, supra, at 46; United States v. McGowan, supra, at 538. Moreover, the Historical and Revision Notes to the statute that enacted § 1151 state that § 1151’s definition of Indian country is based “on [the] latest construction of the term by the United States Supreme Court in U S. v. McGowan .. . following U. S. v. Sandoval. (See also Donnelly v. U.S.).... Indian allotments were included in the definition on authority of the case of U. S. v. Pelican.” See Notes to 1948 Act, following 18 U. S. C. § 1151, p. 276 (citations omitted).
We therefore must conclude that in enacting § 1151(b), Congress indicated that a federal set-aside and a federal superintendence requirement must be satisfied for a finding of a “dependent Indian community” — just as those requirements had to be met for a finding of Indian country before 18 U. S. C. § 1151 was enacted. These requirements are re-fleeted in the text of § 1151(b): The federal set-aside requirement ensures that the land in question is occupied by an “Indian community”; the federal superintendence requirement guarantees that the Indian community is sufficiently “dependent” on the Federal Government that the Federal Government and the Indians involved, rather than the States, are to exercise primary jurisdiction over the land in question.
B
The Tribe’s ANCSA lands do not satisfy either of these requirements. After the enactment of ANCSA, the Tribe’s lands are neither “validly set apart for the use of the Indians as such,” nor are they under the superintendence of the Federal Government.
With respect to the federal set-aside requirement, it is significant that ANCSA, far from designating Alaskan lands for Indian use, revoked the existing Venetie Reservation, and indeed revoked all existing reservations in Alaska “set aside by legislation or by Executive or Secretarial Order for Native use,” save one. 43 U. S. C. § 1618(a) (emphasis added). In no clearer fashion could Congress have departed from its traditional practice of setting aside Indian lands. Cf. Hagen v. Utah, 510 U. S. 399, 401 (1994) (holding that by diminishing a reservation and opening the diminished lands to settlement by non-Indians, Congress had extinguished Indian country on the diminished lands).
The Tribe argues — and the Court of Appeals majority agreed, see 101 F. 3d, at 1301-1302—that the ANCSA lands were set apart for the use of the Neets’aii Gwich’in, “as such,” because the Neets’aii Gwich’in acquired the lands pursuant to an ANCSA provision allowing Natives to take title to former reservation lands in return for forgoing all other ANCSA transfers. Brief for Respondents 40-41 (citing 43 U. S. C. § 1618(b)). The difficulty with this contention is that ANCSA transferred reservation lands to private, state-chartered Native corporations, without any restraints on alienation or significant use restrictions, and with the goal of avoiding “any permanent racially defined institutions, rights, privileges, or obligations.” § 1601(b); see also §§ 1607,1613. By ANCSA’s very design, Native corporations can immediately convey former reservation lands to non-Natives, and such corporations are not restricted to using those lands for Indian purposes. Because Congress contemplated that non-Natives could own the former Yenetie Reservation, and because the Tribe is free to use it for non-Indian purposes, we must conclude that the federal set-aside requirement is not met. Cf. United States v. McGowan, 302 U. S., at 538 (noting that the land constituting the Reno Indian Colony was held in trust by the Federal Government for the benefit of the Indians); see also United States v. Pelican, 232 U. S., at 447 (noting federal restraints on the alienation of the allotments in question).
Equally clearly, ANCSA ended federal superintendence over the Tribe’s lands. As noted above, ANCSA revoked the Venetie Reservation along with every other reservation in Alaska but one, see 43 U. S. C. § 1618(a), and Congress stated explicitly that ANCSA’s settlement provisions were intended to avoid a “lengthy wardship or trusteeship.” § 1601(b). After ANCSA, federal protection of the Tribe’s land is essentially limited to a statutory declaration that the land is exempt from adverse possession claims, real property taxes, and certain judgments as long as it has not been sold, leased, or developed. See § 1636(d). These protections, if they can be called that, simply do not approach the level of superintendence over the Indians’ land that existed in our prior cases. In each of those eases, the Federal Government actively controlled the lands in question, effectively acting as a guardian for the Indians. See United States v. McGowan, supra, at 537-539 (emphasizing that the Federal Government had retained title to the land to protect the Indians living there); United States v. Pelican, supra, at 447 (stating that the allotments were “under the jurisdiction and control of Congress for all governmental purposes, relating to the guardianship and protection of the Indians”); United States v. Sandoval, 231 U. S., at 37, n. 1 (citing federal statute placing the Pueblos’ land under the “ ‘absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States’ ”). Finally, it is worth noting that Congress conveyed ANCSA lands to state-chartered and state-regulated private business corporations, hardly a choice that comports with a desire to retain federal superintendence over the land.
The Tribe contends that the requisite federal superintendence is present because the Federal Government provides “desperately needed health, social, welfare, and economic programs” to the Tribe. Brief for Respondents 28. The Court of Appeals majority found this argument persuasive. 101 F. 3d, at 1301. Our Indian country precedents, however, do not suggest that the mere provision of “desperately needed” social programs can support a finding of Indian country. Such health, education, and welfare benefits are merely forms of general federal aid; considered either alone or in tandem with ANCSA’s minimal land-related protections, they are not indicia of active federal control over the Tribe’s land sufficient to support a finding of federal superintendence.
The Tribe’s federal superintendence argument, moreover, is severely undercut by its view of ANCSA’s primary purposes, namely, to effect Native self-determination and to end paternalism in federal Indian relations. See, e. g., Brief for Respondents 44 (noting.that ANCSA’s land transfers “foster[ed] greater tribal self-determination” and “renounc[ed] [Bureau of Indian Affairs] paternalism”). The broad federal superintendence requirement for Indian country cuts against these objectives, but we are not free to ignore that requirement as codified in 18 U. S. C. § 1151. Whether the concept of Indian country should be modified is a question entirely for Congress.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Generally speaking, primary jurisdiction over land that is Indian country rests with the Federal Government and the Indian tribe inhabiting it, and not with the States. See, e. g., South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, ante, at 343.
As noted, only one Indian reservation, the Annette Island Reserve, survived ANCSA. Other Indian country exists in Alaska post-ANCSA only if the land in question meets the requirements of a "dependent Indian communit[y]” under our interpretation of § 1151(b), or if it constitutes “allotments” under § 1151(c).
We had also held, not surprisingly, that Indian reservations were Indian country. See, e. g., Donnelly v. United States, 228 U. S. 243, 269 (1913).
One such law was Rev. Stat. § 2116, 25 U. S. C. § 177, which rendered invalid any conveyance of Indian land not made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution, and which we later held applicable to the Pueblos. See United States v. Candelaria, 271 U. S. 432, 441-442 (1926).
In attempting to defend the Court of Appeals’ judgment, the Tribe asks us to adopt a different conception of the term “dependent Indian communities.” Borrowing from Chief Justice Marshall’s seminal opinions in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1 (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515 (1832), the Tribe argues that the term refers to ‘political dependence, and that Indian country exists wherever land is owned by a federally recognized tribe. Federally recognized tribes, the Tribe contends, are “domestic dependent nations,” Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, supra, at 17, and thus ipso facto under the superintendence of the Federal Government. See Brief for Respondents 23-24.
This argument ignores our Indian country precedents, whieh indicate both that the Federal Government must take some action setting apart the land for the use of the Indians “as such,” and that it is the land in question, and not merely the Indian tribe inhabiting it, that must be under the superintendence of the Federal Government. See, e. g., United States v. McGowan, 302 U. S. 535, 539 (1938) (“The Reno Colony has been validly set apart for the use of the Indians. It is under the superintendence of the Government. The Government retains title to the lands which it permits the Indians to occupy”); United States v. Pelican, 232 U. S. 442, 449 (1914) (noting that the Federal Government retained “ultimate control” over the allotments in question).
The federal set-aside requirement also reflects the fact that because Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs, see U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, some explicit action by Congress (or the Executive, acting under delegated authority) must be taken to create or to recognize Indian country.
Although the Court of Appeals majority also reached the conclusion that § 1151(b) imposes federal set-aside and federal superintendence requirements, it defined those requirements far differently, by resort to its “textured” six-factor balancing test. See 101F. 3d 1286, 1293 (CA9 1996). Three of those factors, however, were extremely far removed from the requirements themselves: “the nature of the area”; “the relationship of the area inhabitants to Indian tribes and the federal government”; and “the degree of cohesiveness of the area inhabitants.” Id., at 1300-1301. The Court of Appeals majority, however, accorded those factors virtually the same weight as other, more relevant ones: “the degree of federal ownership of and control over the area,” and “the extent to which the area was set aside for the use, occupancy, and protection of dependent Indian peoples.” Id, at 1301. By balancing these “factors” against one another, the Court of Appeals reduced the federal set-aside and superintendence requirements to mere considerations.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 amended 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a), which now requires a prisoner to exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before suing over prison conditions. The question is whether an inmate seeking only money damages must complete a prison administrative process that could provide some sort of relief on the eomplaint stated, but no money. We hold that he must.
I
Petitioner, Timothy Booth, was an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, Pennsylvania, when he began this action under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He claimed that respondent corrections officers at Smithfield violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by assaulting him, bruising his wrists in tightening and twisting handcuffs placed upon him, throwing cleaning material in his face, and denying him medical attention to treat ensuing injuries. Booth sought various forms of injunctive relief, including transfer to another prison, as well as several hundred thousand dollars in money damages.
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections provided an administrative grievance system at the time. It called for a written charge within 15 days of an event prompting an inmate’s complaint, which was referred to a grievance officer for investigation and resolution. If any action taken or recommended was unsatisfactory to the inmate, he could appeal to an intermediate reviewing authority, with the possibility of a further and final appeal to a central review committee. App. 46-50. While the grievance system addressed complaints of the abuse and excessive force Booth alleged, it had no provision for recovery of money damages.
Before resorting to federal court, Booth filed an administrative grievance charging at least some of the acts of abuse he later alleged in his action. Id., at 10-14. He did not, however, go beyond the first step, and never sought intermediate or final administrative review after the prison authority denied relief.
Booth’s failure to avail himself of the later stages of the administrative process led the District Court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust “administrative remedies . . . available” within the meaning of 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a) (1994 ed., Supp. V). See App. to Pet. for Cert. 38a. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, 206 F. 3d 289 (2000), rejecting Booth’s argument that the statutory exhaustion requirement is inapposite to his case simply because the Commonwealth’s administrative process could not award him the monetary relief he sought (money then being the only relief still requested, since Booth’s transfer to another institution had mooted his claims for injunctive orders). Although the Third Circuit acknowledged that several other Courts of Appeals had held the exhaustion requirement subject to exception when the internal grievance procedure could not provide an inmate-plaintiff with the purely monetary relief requested in his federal action, see, e. g., Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F. 3d 882 (CA5 1998); Lunsford v. Jumao-As, 155 F. 3d 1178 (CA9 1998); Garrett v. Hawk, 127 F. 3d 1263 (CA10 1997), the court found no such exception in the statute, 206 F. 3d, at 299-300; accord, Freeman v. Francis, 196 F. 3d 641 (CA6 1999); Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F. 3d 1321 (CA11 1998). We granted certiorari to address this conflict among the Circuits, 531 U.S. 956 (2000), and we now affirm.
II
In the aftermath of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a) (1994 ed., Supp. V) provides that
“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1988 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”
The meaning of the phrase “administrative remedies . . . available” is the crux of the case, and up to a point the parties approach it with agreement. Neither of them denies that some redress for a wrong is presupposed by the statute’s requirement of an “available” “remed[y]”; neither argues that exhaustion is required where the relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action whatsoever in response to a complaint. The dispute here, then, comes down to whether or not a remedial scheme is “available” where, as in Pennsylvania, the administrative process has authority to take some action in response to a complaint, but not the remedial action an inmate demands to the exclusion of all other forms of redress.
In seeking the congressional intent, the parties urge us to give weight to practical considerations, among others, and at first glance Booth’s position holds some intuitive appeal. Although requiring an inmate to exhaust prison grievance procedures will probably obviate some litigation when the administrative tribunal can award at least some of the relief sought, Booth argues that when the prison’s process simply cannot satisfy the inmate’s sole demand, the odds of keeping the matter out of court are slim. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 16. The prisoner would be clearly burdened, while the government would obtain little or no value in return. The respondents, however, also have something to say. They argue that requiring exhaustion in these circumstances would produce administrative results that would satisfy at least some inmates who start out asking for nothing but money, since the very fact of being heard and prompting administrative change can mollify passions even when nothing ends up in the pocket. And one may suppose that the administrative process itself would filter out some frivolous claims and foster better-prepared litigation once a dispute did move to the courtroom, even absent formal factfinding. Although we have not accorded much weight to these possibilities in the past, see McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140,155-156 (1992), Congress, as we explain below, may well have thought we were shortsighted. See infra, at 739-741. In any event, the practical arguments for exhaustion at least suffice to refute Booth’s claim that no policy considerations justify respondents’ position. The upshot is that pragmatism is inconclusive.
Each of the parties also says that the plain meaning of the words “remedies” and “available” in the phrase “such administrative remedies . . . available” is controlling. But as it turns out both of them quote some of the same dictionary definitions of “available” “remedies,” and neither comes up with anything conclusive. Booth says the term “remedy” means a procedure that provides redress for wrong or enforcement of a right, and “available” means having sufficient power to achieve an end sought. See Brief for Petitioner 15-16 (citing Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 150, 1920 (1993) (defining “remedy” as “the legal means to recover a right or to prevent or obtain redress for a wrong” and “available” as “having sufficient power or force to achieve an end,” “capable of use for the accomplishment of a purpose,” and that which “is accessible or may be obtained”)). So far so good, but Booth then claims to be able to infer with particularity that when a prisoner demands money damages as the sole means to compensate his injuries, a grievance system without that relief offers no “available” “remed[y].” The general definitions, however, just do not entail such a specific conclusion.
It strikes us that the same definitions get the respondent corrections officers and their amicus the United States closer to firm ground for their assertion that the phrase “such administrative remedies as are available” naturally requires a prisoner to exhaust the grievance procedures offered, whether or not the possible responses cover the specific relief the prisoner demands. See Brief for Respondents 21. The United States tracks Booth in citing Webster’s Third New International Dictionary to define “remedy” as “the legal means to recover a right or to prevent or obtain redress for a wrong” and “available” as “capable of use for the accomplishment of a purpose.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, supra, at 150, 1920. But this exercise in isolated definition is ultimately inconclusive, for, depending on where one looks, “remedy” can mean either specific relief obtainable at the end of a process of seeking redress, or the process itself, the procedural avenue leading to some relief. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1296 (7th ed. 1999) (defining “remedy” alternatively as “[t]he means of enforcing a right or preventing or redressing a wrong,” or as “REMEDIAL ACTION_Cf. RELIEF”).
We find clearer pointers toward the congressional objective in two considerations, the first being the broader statutory context in which “available” “remedies” are mentioned. The entire modifying clause in which the words occur is this: “until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” The “available” “remed[y]” must be “exhausted” before a complaint under §1983 may be entertained. While the modifier “available” requires the possibility of some relief for the action complained of (as the parties agree), the word “exhausted” has a decidedly procedural emphasis. It makes sense only in referring to the procedural means, not the particular relief ordered. It would, for example, be very strange usage to say that a prisoner must “exhaust” an administrative order reassigning an abusive guard before a prisoner could go to court and ask for something else; or to say (in States that award money damages administratively) that a prisoner must “exhaust” his damages award before going to court for more. How would he “exhaust” a transfer of personnel? Would he have to spend the money to “exhaust” the monetary relief given him? It makes no sense to demand that someone exhaust “such administrative [redress]” as is available; one “exhausts” processes, not forms of relief, and the statute provides that one must.
A second consideration, statutory history, confirms the suggestion that Congress meant to require procedural exhaustion regardless of the fit between a prisoner's prayer for relief and the administrative remedies possible. Before §1997e(a) was amended by the Act of 1995, a court had discretion (though no obligation) to require a state inmate to exhaust “such . . . remedies as are available,” but only if those remedies were “plain, speedy, and effective.” 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a) (1994 ed.). That scheme, however, is now a thing of the past, for the amendments eliminated both the discretion to dispense with administrative exhaustion and the condition that the remedy be “plain, speedy, and effective” before exhaustion could be required.
The significance of deleting that condition is apparent in light of our decision two years earlier in McCarthy v. Madigan, supra. In McCarthy, a federal inmate, much like Booth, sought only money damages against federal prison officials, and the Bureau of Prison’s administrative procedure offered no such relief. Although § 1997e(a) did not at that time apply to suits brought against federal officials, the government argued that the Court should create an analogous exhaustion requirement for Bivens actions. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971). It proposed § 1997e(a) as a model, on the assumption that the provision required exhaustion by those seeking nothing but money damages even when money was unavailable at the administrative level. We understood the effect of § 1997e(a) to be quite different, however. See 503 U. S., at 149-151. In holding that exhaustion was not required, we reasoned in part from the language of § 1997e(a) that required an “effective” administrative remedy as a precondition to exhaustion. Id., at 150. When a prisoner sought only money damages, we indicated, only a procedure able to provide money damages would be “effective” within the meaning of the statute. Ibid. (“[I]n contrast to the absence of any provision for the award of money damages under the Bureau’s general grievance procedure, the statute conditions exhaustion on the existence of ‘effective administrative remedies’”); see also id., at 156 (Rehnquist, C.J., joined by Scaua and Thomas, 33., concurring in judgment) (“[I]n eases ... where prisoners seek monetary relief, the Bureau’s administrative remedy furnishes no effective remedy”).
When Congress replaced the text of the statute as construed in McCarthy with the exhaustion requirement at issue today, it presumably understood that under McCarthy the term “effective” in the former §1997e(a) eliminated the possibility of requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies when an inmate sought only monetary relief and the administrative process offered none. It has to be significant that Congress removed the very term we had previously emphasized in reaching the result Booth now seeks, and the fair inference to be drawn is that Congress meant to preclude the McCarthy result. Congress’s imposition of an obviously broader exhaustion requirement makes it highly implausible that it meant to give prisoners a strong inducement to skip the administrative process simply by limiting prayers for relief to money damages not offered through administrative grievance mechanisms.
Thus, we think that Congress has mandated exhaustion clearly enough, regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures. Cf. McCarthy, 503 U.S., at 144 (“Where Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required”). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Third Circuit.
It is so ordered.
The Commonwealth has since modified its grievance scheme to permit awards of money. App. 60.
There is some uncertainty, probably stemming in part from the ambiguity of Booth’s pro se filings in District Court, as to whether all of Booth’s claims for relief other than money damages became moot when he was transferred. See Brief for Petitioner 12, n. 7; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10, n. 2. We assume for present purposes that only Booth’s claims for money damages remain.
110 Stat. 1321, as renumbered and amended.
Without the possibility of some relief, the administrative officers would presumably have no authority to act on the subject of the complaint, leaving the inmate with nothing to exhaust. The parties do not dispute that the state grievance system at issue in this case has authority to take some responsive action with respect to the type of allegations Booth raises.
This inference is, to say the least, also consistent with Congress’s elimination of the requirement that administrative procedures must satisfy certain “minimum acceptable standards” of fairness and effectiveness before inmates can be required to exhaust them, and the elimination of eourts’ discretion to excuse exhaustion when it would not be “appropriate and in the interests of justice.” Compare 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a) (1994 ed., Supp. V) with 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a) (1994 ed.).
That Congress has mandated exhaustion in either case defeats the argument of Booth and supporting amid that this reading of §1997e (1994 ed., Supp. V) is at odds with traditional doctrines of administrative exhaustion, under which a litigant need not apply to an agency that has “no power to decree... relief,” Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U. S. 258,269 (1993), or need not exhaust where doing so would otherwise be futile. See Brief for Petitioner 24-27; Brief for Brennan Center for Justice et al. as Amid Curiae. Without getting into the force of this claim generally, we stress the point (which Booth acknowledges, see Reply Brief for Petitioner 4) that we will not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements where Congress has provided otherwise. See McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992); c£ Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 766-767 (1975). Here, we hold only that Gongress has provided in § 1997e(a) that an inmate must exhaust irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative avenues.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In grievance proceedings initiated by employees of the Arkansas State Highway Department, the State Highway Commission will not consider a grievance unless the employee submits his written complaint directly to the designated employer representative. The District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas found that this procedure denied the union representing the employees the ability to submit effective grievances on their behalf and therefore violated the First Amendment. 459 F. Supp. 452 (1978). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 585 F. 2d 876 (1978). We disagree with these holdings; finding no constitutional violation in the actions of the Commission or its individual members, we grant certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The First Amendment protects the right of an individual to speak freely, to advocate ideas, to associate with others, and to petition his government for redress of grievances. And it protects the right of associations to engage in advocacy on behalf of their members. NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415 (1963); Eastern Railroad Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U. S. 127 (1961). The government is prohibited from infringing upon these guarantees either by a general prohibition against certain forms of advocacy, NAACP v. Button, supra, or by imposing sanctions for the expression of particular views it opposes, e. g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64 (1964).
But the First Amendment is not a substitute for the national labor relations laws. As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recognized in Hanover Township Federation of Teachers v. Hanover Community School Corp., 457 F. 2d 456 (1972), the fact that procedures followed by a public employer in bypassing the union and dealing directly with its members might well be unfair labor practices were federal statutory law applicable hardly establishes that such procedures violate the Constitution. The First Amendment right to associate and to advocate “provides no guarantee that a speech will persuade or that advocacy will be effective.” Id., at 461. The public employee surely can associate and speak freely and petition openly, and he is protected by the First Amendment from retaliation for doing so. See Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563, 574-575 (1968); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479 (1960). But the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen, to respond or, in this context, to recognize the association and bargain with it.
In the case before us, there is no claim that the Highway Commission has prohibited its employees from joining together in a union, or from persuading others to do so, or from advocating any particular ideas. There is, in short, no claim of retaliation or discrimination proscribed by the First Amendment. Rather, the complaint of the union and its members is simply that the Commission refuses to consider or act upon grievances when filed by the union rather than by the employee directly.
Were public employers such as the Commission subject to the same labor laws applicable to private employers, this refusal might well constitute an unfair labor practice. We may assume that it would and, further, that it tends to impair or undermine — if only slightly — the effectiveness of the union in representing the economic interests of its members. Cf. Hanover Township, supra.
But this type of “impairment” is not one that the Constitution prohibits. Far from taking steps to prohibit or discourage union membership or association, all that the Commission has done in its challenged conduct is simply to ignore the union. That it is free to do.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
This suit was brought by the Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315, and eight of its individual members, after the Commission refused to consider grievances submitted by the union on behalf of two of its members. The facts in these two cases are not in dispute:
“[E]ach employee sent a letter to Local 1315, explaining the nature of their grievance and requesting the union to process the grievances on their behalf. In each case the union forwarded the employee’s letter to the designated employer’s representative and included its own letter stating that it represented the employees and desired to set up a meeting. The employer’s representative did not respond to the union’s letter. Thereafter each employee filed a written complaint directly with the employer representative. Local 1315 represented each employee at subsequent meetings with the employer representative.” 585 F. 2d, at 877.
The individual Commissioners of the Arkansas State Highway Commission and the Director of the State Highway Department were named as defendants, and are the petitioners in this Court.
See Hanover Township Federation of Teachers v. Hanover Community School Corp., 457 F. 2d 456, 461 (CA7 1972), quoting Indianapolis Education Assn. v. Lewallen, 72 LRRM 2071, 2072 (CA7 1969) (“there is no constitutional duty to bargain collectively with an exclusive bargaining agent”).
The union does represent its members at all meetings with employer representatives subsequent to the filing of a written grievance. See n. 1, supra. The “impairment” is thus limited to the requirement that written complaints, to be considered, must initially be submitted directly to the employer representative by the employee. There appears to be no bar, however, on the employee’s securing any form of advice from his union, or from anyone else. Cf. Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Assn., 389 U. S. 217 (1967); Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U. S. 1 (1964).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617, 618 (1978), we held that a New Jersey law prohibiting the importation of most “ ‘solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the State’” violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In this case petitioner challenges a Michigan law that prohibits private landfill operators from accepting solid waste that originates outside the county in which their facilities are located. Adhering to our holding in the New Jersey case, we conclude that this Michigan statute is also unconstitutional.
HH
In 1978, Michigan enacted its Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA). That Act required every Michigan county to estimate the amount of solid waste that would be generated in the county in the next 20 years and to adopt a plan providing for its disposal at facilities that comply with state health standards. Mich. Comp. Laws § 299.425 (Supp. 1991). After holding public hearings and obtaining the necessary-approval of municipalities in the county, as well as the approval of the Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the County Board of Commissioners adopted a solid waste management plan for St. Clair County. In 1987, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources issued a permit to petitioner to operate a sanitary landfill as a solid waste disposal area in St. Clair County. See Bill Kettlewell Excavating, Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, 931 F. 2d 413, 414 (CA6 1991).
On December 28, 1988, the Michigan Legislature amended the SWMA by adopting two provisions concerning the “acceptance of waste or ash generated outside the county of disposal area.” See 1988 Mich. Pub. Acts, No. 475, § 1, codified as amended, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 299.413a, 299.430(2) (Supp. 1991). Those amendments (Waste Import Restrictions), which became effective immediately, provide:
“A person shall not accept for disposal solid waste . . . that is not generated in the county in which the disposal area is located unless the acceptance of solid waste . . . that is not generated in the county is explicitly authorized in the approved county solid waste management plan.” § 299.413a.
“In order for a disposal area to serve the disposal needs of another county, state, or country, the service ... must be explicitly authorized in the approved solid waste management plan of the receiving county.” § 299.430(2).
In February 1989, petitioner submitted an application to the St. Clair County Solid Waste Planning Committee for authority to accept up to 1,750 tons per day of out-of-state waste at its landfill. See Bill Kettlewell Excavating, Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, 732 F. Supp. 761, 762 (ED Mich. 1990). In that application petitioner promised to reserve sufficient capacity to dispose of all solid waste generated in the county in the next 20 years. The planning committee denied the application. Ibid. In view of the fact that the county’s management plan does not authorize the acceptance of any out-of-eounty waste, the Waste Import Restrictions in the 1988 statute effectively prevent petitioner from receiving any solid waste that does not originate in St. Clair County.
Petitioner therefore commenced this action seeking a judgment declaring the Waste Import Restrictions unconstitutional and enjoining their enforcement. Petitioner contended that requiring a private landfill operator to limit its business to the acceptance of local waste constituted impermissible discrimination against interstate commerce. The District Court denied petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, however, id., at 766, and subsequently dismissed the complaint, App. 4. The court first concluded that the statute does not discriminate against interstate commerce “on its face” because the import restrictions apply “equally to Michigan counties outside of the county adopting the plan as well as to out-of-state entities.” 732 F. Supp., at 764. It also concluded that there was no discrimination “in practical effect” because each county was given discretion to accept out-of-state waste. Ibid. Moreover, the incidental effect on interstate commerce was “not clearly excessive in relation to the [public health and environmental] benefits derived by Michigan from the statute.” Id., at 765.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the District Court’s analysis. Although it recognized that the statute “places in-county and out-of-county waste in separate categories,” the Court of Appeals found no discrimination against interstate commerce because the statute “does not treat out-of-county waste from Michigan any differently than waste from other states.” 931 F. 2d, at 417. It also agreed that there was no actual discrimination because petitioner had not alleged that all counties in Michigan ban out-of-state waste. Id., at 418. Accordingly, it affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Ibid. We granted certiorari, 502 U. S. 1024 (1992), because of concern that the decision below was inconsistent with Philadelphia v. New Jersey and now reverse.
II
Before discussing the rather narrow issue that is contested, it is appropriate to identify certain matters that are not in dispute. Michigan’s comprehensive program of regulating the collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste, as it was enacted in 1978 and administered prior to the 1988 Waste Import Restrictions, is not challenged. No issue relating to hazardous waste is presented, and there is no claim that petitioner’s operation violated any health, safety, or sanitation requirement. Nor does the case raise any question concerning policies that municipalities or other governmental agencies may pursue in the management of publicly owned facilities. The case involves only the validity of the Waste Import Restrictions as they apply to privately owned and operated landfills.
On the other hand, Philadelphia v. New Jersey provides the framework for our analysis of this case. Solid waste, even if it has no value, is an article of commerce. 437 U. S., at 622-623. Whether the business arrangements between out-of-state generators of waste and the Michigan operator of a waste disposal site are viewed as “sales” of garbage or “purchases” of transportation and disposal services, the commercial transactions unquestionably have an interstate character. The Commerce Clause thus imposes some constraints on Michigan’s ability to regulate these transactions.
As we have long recognized, the “negative” or “dormant” aspect of the Commerce Clause prohibits States from “advancing] their own commercial interests by curtailing the movement of articles of commerce, either into or out of the state.” H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 535 (1949). A state statute that clearly discriminates against interstate commerce is therefore unconstitutional “unless the discrimination is demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism.” New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U. S. 269, 274 (1988).
New Jersey’s prohibition on the importation of solid waste failed this test:
“[T]he evil of protectionism can reside in legislative means as well as legislative ends. Thus, it does not matter whether the ultimate aim of ch. 363 is to reduce the waste disposal costs of New Jersey residents or to save remaining open lands from pollution, for we assume New Jersey has every right to protect its residents’ pocketbooks as well as their environment. And it may be assumed as well that New Jersey may pursue those ends by slowing the flow of all waste into the State’s remaining landfills, even though interstate commerce may incidentally be affected. But whatever New Jersey’s ultimate purpose, it may not be accompanied by discriminating against articles of commerce coming from outside the State unless there is some reason, apart from their origin, to treat them differently. Both on its face and in its plain effect, ch. 363 violates this principle of nondiscrimination.
“The Court has consistently found parochial legislation of this kind to be constitutionally invalid, whether the ultimate aim of the legislation was to assure a steady supply of milk by erecting barriers to allegedly ruinous outside competition, Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S., at 522-524; or to create jobs by keeping industry within the State, Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 1, 10; Johnson v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 16; Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S., at 403-404; or to preserve the State’s financial resources from depletion by fencing out indigent immigrants, Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160, 173-174. In each of these cases, a presumably legitimate goal was sought to be achieved by the illegitimate means of isolating the State from the national economy.” Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S., at 626-627.
The Waste Import Restrictions enacted by Michigan authorize each of the State’s 83 counties to isolate itself from the national economy. Indeed, unless a county acts affirmatively to permit other waste to enter its jurisdiction, the statute affords local waste producers complete protection from competition from out-of-state waste producers who seek to use local waste disposal areas. In view of the fact that Michigan has not identified any reason, apart from its origin, why solid waste coming from outside the county should be treated differently from solid waste within the county, the foregoing reasoning would appear to control the disposition of this case.
Ill
Respondents Michigan and St. Clair County argue, however, that the Waste Import Restrictions — unlike the New Jersey prohibition on the importation of solid waste — do not discriminate against interstate commerce on their face or in effect because they treat waste from other Michigan counties no differently than waste from other States. Instead, respondents maintain, the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate local interests and should be upheld because the burden on interstate commerce is not clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits. Cf. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137, 142 (1970). We disagree, for our prior cases teach that a State (or one of its political subdivisions) may not avoid the strictures of the Commerce Clause by curtailing the movement of articles of commerce through subdivisions of the State, rather than through the State itself.
In Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78 (1891), we reviewed the constitutionality of a Virginia statute that imposed special inspection fees on meat from animals that had been slaughtered more than 100 miles from the place of sale. We concluded that the statute violated the Commerce Clause even though it burdened Virginia producers as well as the Illinois litigant before the Court. We explained:
“[T]his statute [cannot] be brought into harmony with the Constitution by the circumstance that it purports to apply alike to the citizens of all the States, including Virginia; for, ‘a burden imposed by a State upon interstate commerce is not to be sustained simply because the statute imposing it applies alike to the people of all the States, including the people of the State enacting such statute.’ Minnesota v. Barber, [136 U. S. 313 (1890)]; Robbins v. Shelby Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489, 497. If the object of Virginia had been to obstruct the bringing into that State, for use as human food, of all beef, veal and mutton, however wholesome, from animals slaughtered in distant States, that object will be accomplished if the statute before us be enforced.” Id., at 82-83.
In Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U. S. 349 (1951), another Illinois litigant challenged a city ordinance that made it unlawful to sell any milk as pasteurized unless it had been processed at a plant “within a radius of five miles from the central square of Madison,” id., at 350. We held the ordinance invalid, explaining:
“[T]his regulation, like the provision invalidated in Baldwin v. Seelig, Inc., [294 U. S. 511 (1935)], in practical effect excludes from distribution in Madison wholesome milk produced and pasteurized in Illinois. ‘The importer . . . may keep his milk or drink it, but sell it he may not.’ Id., at 521. In thus erecting an economic barrier protecting a major local industry against competition from without the State, Madison plainly discriminates against interstate commerce.” Id., at 354.
The fact that the ordinance also discriminated against all Wisconsin producers whose facilities were more than five miles from the center of the city did not mitigate its burden on interstate commerce. As we noted, it was “immaterial that Wisconsin milk from outside the Madison area is subjected to the same proscription as that moving in interstate commerce.” Id., at 354, n. 4.
Nor does the fact that the Michigan statute allows individual counties to accept solid waste from out of state qualify its discriminatory character. In the New Jersey case the statute authorized a state agency to promulgate regulations permitting certain categories of waste to enter the State. See 437 U. S., at 618-619. The limited exception covered by those regulations — like the fact that several Michigan counties accept out-of-state waste — merely reduced the scope of the discrimination; for all categories of waste not excepted by the regulations, the discriminatory ban remained in place. Similarly, in this case St. Clair County’s total ban on out-of-state waste is unaffected by the fact that some other counties have adopted a different policy.
In short, neither the fact that the Michigan statute purports to regulate intercounty commerce in waste nor the fact that some Michigan counties accept out-of-state waste provides an adequate basis for distinguishing this case from Philadelphia v. New Jersey.
M IV
Michigan and St. Clair County also argue that this case is different from Philadelphia v. New Jersey because the SWMA constitutes a comprehensive health and safety regulation rather than “economic protectionism” of the State’s limited landfill capacity. Relying on an excerpt from our opinion in Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U. S. 941 (1982), they contend that the differential treatment of out-of-state waste is reasonable because they have taken measures to conserve their landfill capacity and the SWMA is necessary to protect the health of their citizens. That reliance is misplaced. In the Sporhase case we considered the constitutionality of a Nebraska statute that prohibited the withdrawal of ground water for use in an adjoining State without a permit that could only issue if four conditions were satisfied. We held that the fourth condition — a requirement that the adjoining State grant reciprocal rights to withdraw its water and allow its use in Nebraska — violated the Commerce Clause. Id., at 957-958.
As a preface to that holding, we identified several reasons that, in combination, justified the conclusion that the other conditions were facially valid. Id., at 957. First, we questioned whether the statute actually discriminated against interstate commerce. Although the restrictive conditions in the statute nominally applied only to interstate transfers of ground water, they might have been “no more strict in application than [other state-law] limitations upon intrastate transfers.” Id., at 956. “Obviously, a State that imposes severe withdrawal and use restrictions on its own citizens is not discriminating against interstate commerce when it seeks to prevent the uncontrolled transfer of water out of the State.” Id., at 955-956.
We further explained that a confluence of factors could justify a State’s efforts to conserve and preserve ground water for its own citizens in times of severe shortage. Only the first of those reasons — our reference to the well-recognized difference between economic protectionism, on the one hand, and health and safety regulation, on the other — is even arguably relevant to this case. We may assume that all of the provisions of Michigan’s SWMA prior to the 1988 amendments adding the Waste Import Restrictions could fairly be characterized as health and safety regulations with no protectionist purpose, but we cannot make that same assumption with respect to the Waste Import Restrictions themselves. Because those provisions unambiguously discriminate against interstate commerce, the State bears the burden of proving that they further health and safety concerns that cannot be adequately served by nondiscriminatory alternatives. Michigan and St. Clair County have not met this burden.
Michigan and St. Clair County assert that the Waste Import Restrictions are necessary because they enable individual counties to make adequate plans for the safe disposal of future waste. Although accurate forecasts about the volume and composition of future waste flows may be an indispensable part of a comprehensive waste disposal plan, Michigan could attain that objective without discriminating between in- and out-of-state waste. Michigan could, for example, limit the amount of waste that landfill operators may accept each year. See Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S., at 626. There is, however, no valid health and safety reason for limiting the amount of waste that a landfill operator may accept from outside the State, but not the amount that the operator may accept from inside the State.
Of course, our conclusion would be different if the imported waste raised health or other concerns not presented by Michigan waste. In Maine v. Taylor, 477 U. S. 131 (1986), for example, we upheld the State’s prohibition against the importation of live baitfish because parasites and other characteristics of nonnative species posed a serious threat to native fish that could not be avoided by available inspection techniques. We concluded:
“The evidence in this case amply supports the District Court’s findings that Maine’s ban on the importation of live baitfish serves legitimate local purposes that could not adequately be served by available nondiscriminatory alternatives. This is not a case of arbitrary discrimination against interstate commerce; the record suggests that Maine has legitimate reasons, ‘apart from their origin, to treat [out-of-state baitfish] differently,’ Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S., at 627.” Id., at 151-152.
In this case, in contrast, the lower courts did not find — and respondents have not provided — any legitimate reason for allowing petitioner to accept waste from inside the county but not waste from outside the county.
For the foregoing reasons, the Waste Import Restrictions unambiguously discriminate against interstate commerce and are appropriately characterized as protectionist measures that cannot withstand scrutiny under the Commerce Clause. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.
It is so ordered.
1978 Mich. Pub. Acts, No. 641, codified as amended, Mich. Comp. Laws §§299.401-299.437 (1984 ed. and Supp. 1991).
The Michigan statute defines solid waste as follows:
“Sec. 7. (1) ‘Solid waste’ means garbage, rubbish, ashes, incinerator ash, incinerator residue, street cleanings, municipal and industrial sludges, solid commercial and solid industrial waste, and animal waste other than organic waste generated in the production of livestock and poultry. Solid waste does not include the following:
“(a) Human body waste.
“(b) Organic waste generated in the production of livestock and poultry. “(c) Liquid waste.
“(d) Ferrous or nonferrous scrap directed to a scrap metal processor or to a reuser of ferrous or nonferrous products.
“(e) Slag or slag products directed to a slag processor or to a reuser of slag or slag products.
“(f) Sludges and ashes managed as recycled or nondetrimental materials appropriate for agricultural or silvicultural use pursuant to a plan approved by the director.
“(g) Materials approved for emergency disposal by the director.
“(h) Source separated materials.
“(i) Site separated materials.
“(j) Fly ash or any other ash produced from the combustion of coal, when used in the following instances ...
“(k) Other wastes regulated by statute.” Mich. Comp. Laws §299.407(7) (Supp. 1991).
As we explained in Philadelphia v. New Jersey:
“All objects of interstate trade merit Commerce Clause protection; none is excluded by definition at the outset. In Bowman [v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 126 U. S. 465 (1888),] and similar cases, the Court held simply that because the articles’ worth in interstate commerce was far outweighed by the dangers inhering in their very movement, States could prohibit their transportation across state lines. Hence, we reject the state court’s suggestion that the banning of ‘valueless’ out-of-state wastes by ch. 363 implicates no constitutional protection. Just as Congress has power to regulate the interstate movement of these wastes, States are not free from constitutional scrutiny when they, restrict that movement. Cf. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U. S. 794, 802-814; Meat Drivers v. United States, 371 U. S. 94.” 437 U. S., at 622-623.
Cf. Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U. S. 437, 455 (1992) (Oklahoma statute that “expressly reserves a segment of the Oklahoma coal market for Oklahoma-mined coal, to the exclusion of. . . other States,” violates the Commerce Clause even though it “sets aside only a ‘small portion’ of the Oklahoma coal market.... The volume of commerce affected measures only the extent of the discrimination; it is of no relevance to the determination whether a State has discriminated against interstate commerce”) (emphasis in original).
The statute at issue in Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas provided: “ ‘Any person, firm, city, village, municipal corporation or any other entity intending to withdraw ground water from any well or pit located in the State of Nebraska and transport it for use in an adjoining state shall apply to the Department of Water Resources for a permit to do so. If the Director of Water Resources finds that the withdrawal of the ground water requested is reasonable, is not contrary to the conservation and use of ground water, and is not otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, he shall grant the permit if the state in which the water is to be used grants reciprocal rights to withdraw and transport ground water from that state for use in the State of Nebraska.’” 468 U. S., at 944 (quoting Neb. Rev. Stat. §46-613.01 (1978)).
“Moreover, in the absence of a contrary view expressed by Congress, we are reluctant to condemn as unreasonable, measures taken by a State to conserve and preserve for its own citizens this vital resource in times of severe shortage. Our reluctance stems from the ‘confluence of [several] realities.’ Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U. S. 518, 634 (1978). First, a State’s power to regulate the use of water in times and places of shortage for the purpose of protecting the health of its citizens — and not simply the health of its economy — is at the core of its police power. For Commerce Clause purposes, we have long recognized a difference between economic protectionism, on the one hand, and health and safety regulation, on the other. See H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 533 (1949). Second, the legal expectation that under certain circumstances each State may restrict water within its borders has been fostered over the years not only by our equitable apportionment decrees, see, e. g., Wyoming v. Colorado, 353 U. S. 953 (1957), but also by the negotiation and enforcement of interstate compacts. Our law therefore has recognized the relevance of state boundaries in the allocation of scarce water resources. Third, although appellee’s claim to public ownership of Nebraska ground water cannot justify a total denial of federal regulatory power, it may support a limited preference for its own citizens in the utilization of the resource. See Hicklin v. Orbeck, supra, at 533-534. In this regard, it is relevant that appellee’s claim is logically more substantial than claims to public ownership of other natural resources. See supra, at 950-951. Finally, given appellee’s conservation efforts, the continuing availability of ground water in Nebraska is not simply happenstance; the natural resource has some indicia of a good publicly produced and owned in which a State may favor its own citizens in times of shortage. See Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U. S. 429 (1980); cf. Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S., at 627-628, and n. 6; Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm’n of Montana, 436 U. S. 371 (1978). A facial examination of the first three conditions set forth in §46-613.01 does not, therefore, indicate that they impermissibly burden interstate commerce. Appellants, indeed, seem to concede their reasonableness.” Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U. S., at 956-957.
The other reasons were related to the special role that States have traditionally played in the ownership and control of ground water and to the fact that Nebraska’s conservation efforts had given the water some indicia of a good that is publicly produced and owned. See id., at 966. There are, however, no analogous traditional legal expectations regarding state regulation of private landfills, which are neither publicly produced nor publicly owned.
The dissent states that we should remand for further proceedings in which Michigan and St. Clair County might be able to prove that the Waste Import Restrictions constitute legitimate health and safety regulations, rather than economic protectionism of the State’s limited landfill capacity. See post, at 368, 371. We disagree, for respondents have neither asked for such a remand nor suggested that, if given the opportunity, they could prove that the restrictions further health and safety concerns that cannot adequately be served by nondiscriminatory alternatives.
“An unregulated free market flow of waste into Michigan,” the State asserts, “would be disruptive of efforts to plan for the proper disposal of future waste due to incoming waste from sources not accounted for during the planning process.” Brief for State Respondents 49; see also Brief for County Respondents 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:
|
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 Rutledge
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, like Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. 275, presents a problem in the seniority standing of a reemployed veteran. It arises under § 8 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. The Fishgold case held that under the Act a veteran is entitled to be restored to his former position plus seniority which would have accumulated but for his induction into the armed forces. Here the question concerns the duration of the veteran’s restored statutory seniority standing. The petitioners maintain that it ends with the first year of his reemployment. Respondent’s position is that it lasts as long as the employment continues. A suggestion has also been made that occurrences taking place since the decision in the Circuit Court of Appeals may have rendered the cause moot.
The case is an aftermath of a general controversy over seniority rights which arose among the employees of two corporations following their consolidation on January 1, 1944. Because of the relation of the general controversy to this litigation a detailed statement of the facts becomes necessary. Prior to their consolidation the Highland Body Manufacturing Company had been a wholly owned subsidiary of the petitioner, the Trailmobile Company. The two corporations manufactured the same commodities in separate plants in Cincinnati, Ohio. During 1943 under the plan of consolidation the supplies, equipment and personnel of Highland were transferred gradually to the plant of Trailmobile. It took over the assets and business of Highland and assumed all its obligations. The employees of Highland were transferred to the payroll of Trailmobile as of January 1, 1944, when the consolidation became fully effective.
The employees of both companies had been affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. 51 N. L. R. B. 1106, 1108. At the time of the consolidation the Highland group, including respondent, claimed seniority with Trailmobile as of the dates of their employment by Highland. The former Trailmobile employees opposed this, maintaining that the Highland personnel should be considered as new employees of Trailmobile, with seniority dating only from January 1, 1944. This dispute was submitted to national representatives of the A. F. of L. They decided in favor of the Highland group.
The former Trailmobile employees were dissatisfied with this decision. They outnumbered the Highland claimants about ten to one. Accordingly, reorganizing as a unit of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, they requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of Trailmobile’s employees, including the Highland transferees. An election was held under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board, in which the new C. I. 0. local was chosen as bargaining representative for a unit composed of both groups.
Trailmobile accordingly negotiated with the C. I. 0. and in July, 1944, a collective bargaining agreement was concluded, effective as of June 21,1944. It provided that the seniority rights of former Highland employees should be fixed as of January 1, 1944, regardless of the dates of their original employment by Highland.
Respondent Whirls had been in Highland’s employ from 1935 to 1942, when he entered military service. He was honorably discharged and returned to his work with Highland in May, 1943. He was thus among the employees transferred from Highland to Trailmobile as of January 1, 1944, whose seniority was reduced so as to start as of that date by the July, 1944, collective agreement with the C.I.O.
The Highland group contested the agreement’s validity in the Ohio courts in a class suit brought July 17, 1944, by Hess, one of their number, on behalf of himself and 178 others similarly situated. These included 104 persons actually at work, veterans and nonveterans, among whom was Whirls, and 74 employees then in the armed forces. The petition alleged that Trailmobile then had about 500 employees in military service, of whom apparently some 426 were outside the Highland group.
The theory of the class suit was that, although the plaintiffs were not then members of the C. I. 0., the collective bargaining agent was the representative of all employees in the unit and hence could not legally deprive a minority of the employees which it represented of their accrued seniority and other rights by any collective agreement with the company. The petition alleged that the collective agreement arbitrarily and unlawfully deprived the plaintiffs of their “vested individual rights” and asked mandatory injunctive relief restoring each to seniority status as of the date of his employment by Highland. The company and the collective agent stood upon the terms of the collective agreement and the agent’s authority as certified representative to make it as justifying the action taken under it.
The Ohio courts held against the plaintiffs in the action, sustaining the position of the company and the union. They held in effect that the seniority rights in issue arose exclusively from contract, making no reference whatever to § 8 of the Selective Training and Service Act or any question relating to it; that the company and the collective representative were lawfully empowered to enter into the contract fixing those rights as of January 1,1944; that the trial court was not authorized, in its own language, “to contract for the plaintiff[s] or make a new contract,” since that powder “exists only in the exclusive bargaining agent, under the provisions of the National Labor Act so long as that agent acts within the law.”
Accordingly the suit was dismissed. The record here does not disclose the date of the trial court’s judgment. But its decision was affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals before October 2, 1945, when the union’s answer was filed in the present cause; and the case had been finally determined against the plaintiff’s claims by the Supreme Court of Ohio prior to October 15, 1945.
The record is not entirely clear concerning the exact character and sequence of events between July 15, 1944, when Whirls and other former Highland employees were notified that their seniority status would be changed, and September 18, 1945, when the present suit was filed in the District Court. Apparently, after the notice was given, Selective Service officials intervened in behalf of Whirls and other veterans, although his allegation that his seniority was restored as a result of that intervention was denied both by the company and by the union. There is ambiguity also concerning whether the closed-shop provision appeared in the 1944 agreement or only in the 1945 one between the company and the C. I. 0. The facts of record, however, are more consistent with the view that it was not introduced until the latter year.
At any rate, in June or July, 1945, Whirls joined the C. I. 0. union, thus complying with the closed-shop provisions of the collective agreement. And until about September 3 of that year he continued to be employed in the painting department, where he had the highest seniority and was drawing pay of $1.05 per hour. On or about that date, however, the company transferred him to the stock department, threatening to reduce his pay to $0.83 per hour and also to reduce his seniority rating in accordance with the collective agreement.
Whether or not the threatened reductions actually took effect is not clear from the record, for not long afterward Whirls was transferred again, to a position paying $1.18 per hour in another department. But before this was done, represented by the United States Attorney, he brought this suit in the District Court under the Selective Training and Service Act. He sought to enjoin the threatened decrease in pay and change in seniority status. He also asked for restoration to his former position in the painting department and to his seniority as fixed by his original employment with Highland. The employer answered and the local C. I. 0. union intervened in support of the employer’s position. However, since Whirls had been transferred again before the case came on for hearing, the parties agreed at the hearing to limit the issues to those affecting the question of seniority. This was presented in two forms, (1) on the merits, the facts being substantially stipulated; (2) on the question whether the state court proceeding in the class suit had determined the seniority rights of Whirls, making the issue now raised res judicata for this suit. See Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183.
Taking respondent’s view in both respects, the District Court rendered judgment in his favor. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. 154 F. 2d 866. Besides holding res judicata inapplicable, both courts took the view, contrary to that later reached here in the Fishgold case, that the reemployed veteran was entitled to “superseniority” for one year following his reemployment, and went on to hold that his statutory preferred status with respect to seniority and other incidents of his employment did not end with the expiration of that year. Because of the bearing of the Fishgold decision upon the problem and the importance of the question presented, we granted certiorari. 328 U. S. 831.
I.
At the outset it is important, in view of certain questions which have been injected beyond the issues presented for decision, to state explicitly what is not before us. In the first place, we are not required to determine whether the class suit in the state courts constituted an adjudication of the rights of the parties involved in this litigation. That question was presented to the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals. Both determined it adversely to petitioners, but no error was assigned to this ruling in the petition for certiorari. The question is therefore not before this Court and we express no opinion concerning it.
The view entertained in this respect by the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has assumed tangental bearing in connection with the suggestion that the cause may have become moot. In its memorandum filed upon the application for certiorari and in its brief, the Government calls attention to certain events not appearing of record but taking ¡olace after the decision of the Court of Appeals. Though suggesting the facts for our attention, the Government maintains that they do not render the controversy moot. This Court, of course, does not render advisory opinions. And since the suggestion of the facts not only is sufficient to raise the question of mootness but has injected others not comprehended in the issues, it is necessary to dispose of the matter before undertaking a determination of the question otherwise properly here for decision.
It is suggested and not denied that under date of April 10, 1946, respondent was notified by the collective agent that he had been charged with conduct unbecoming a member of the union, namely, in bringing this suit without exhausting the remedies provided by its constitution and by-laws; in thereby violating the collective agreement; in negotiating with the employer through others than the union; and in conducting himself in a manner harmful to its interests and those of its members. Accordingly, on April 15,1946, the union requested Trailmobile to suspend Whirls from work. In consequence, the company directed him not to report for duty. Since then, however, it has continued to keep him on the payroll, on leave of absence with full pay. Although the Government urges that Whirls thus continues in the company’s employ and consequently the case is not moot, its suggestion of the facts has overlaid the only issue brought here by the petition for certiorari with questions of unlawful discrimination allegedly arising out of the suggested facts, under the decisions in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 323 U. S. 210; and Wallace Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 323 U. S. 248.
The facts thus put forward have no proper bearing in this case otherwise than to suggest the question of mootness and to require that any decision which is made upon the merits here be made without prejudice to the future assertion of any rights of respondent which may have been violated by the conduct set forth. We agree that in the circumstances related he remains an employee of the company and the cause is not moot.
We also agree that the question of unlawful discrimination is not properly before us for decision. That question, insofar as it arose from events prior to this litigation, was involved in the Ohio class suit without reference, it would seem, to § 8 or its possible effects. And because the petition for certiorari, as we have noted, assigned no error to the Court of Appeals’ ruling on the issue of res judicata arising from the outcome of the class suit, we are not at liberty now to consider the effect of that litigation or the issues of discrimination embraced in it. Insofar as any question of unlawful discrimination may be thought to arise from the facts said to have taken place after the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, we are also not free at this time to consider or determine such an issue. As the brief of the Government in respondent’s behalf pertinently states, “These points were not raised on respondent’s behalf in.the lower courts, and no evidence was introduced by any party on the issue of unfair discrimination. Cf. Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U. S. 552, 556. In view of that fact, and of the Hess litigation, we believe that it would be inappropriate, at this stage, to argue these issues.”
Wholly aside from any question of power, this disclaimer on behalf of the party affected is a sufficient reason to justify refusal to inject such an issue here or to volunteer aid not sought. We therefore are required to say no more concerning the matter now than that, if respondent has been unlawfully expelled, suspended or otherwise dealt with by the union for asserting his legal rights, the law has provided remedies for such injuries and they may be redressed in appropriate proceedings designed for that purpose upon proof of the facts constituting the wrong and due consideration of the legal issues they present. To assure this possibility, however, the remand which becomes necessary in this cause on the merits will be so framed as to preclude any foreclosure of such rights by possible future application of the doctrine of res judicata arising from this determination.
Since, moreover, in the view of the District Court and apparently of the Court of Appeals, the Ohio class suit was dispositive of issues of unlawful discrimination arising out of the facts presented in that litigation without reference to § 8, it may be added that the Ohio determination could not apply, of course, to such discrimination taking place by virtue of later events.
We turn therefore to consideration of the sole question presented on the merits, namely, whether under § 8 the veteran’s right to statutory seniority extends indefinitely beyond the expiration of the first year of his reemployment, being unaffected by that event as long as the employment itself continues.
II.
The relevant portions of §§ 8 (a) and 8 (b) are set out in the margin. But we are concerned particularly with § 8 (c), which reads:
“Any person who is restored to a position in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b) shall be considered as naving been on furlough or leave of absence during his period of training and service in the land or naval forces, shall be so restored without loss of seniority, shall be entitled to participate in insurance or other benefits offered by the employer pursuant to established rules and practices relating to employees on furlough or leave of absence in effect with the employer at the time such person was inducted into such forces, and shall not be discharged from such position without cause within one year after such restoration.”
The Government argues on respondent’s behalf that the correct meaning of § 8, and particularly of subsection (c), is that upon reemployment the veteran is entitled to retain indefinitely his prewar plus service-accumulated seniority. Under the statute, it says, this seniority cannot be taken away by a collective bargaining agreement or by the employer, either during the year in which the statute insures the veteran against discharge without cause or thereafter while the employment continues. Support for this view is thought to be derived from the syntax of the statutory language and from the legislative history.
It is argued that grammatically the “within one year” provision applies only to the last clause of subsection (c), relating to discharge without cause, and does not refer to the “other rights” given by subsections (b) and (c), including restored statutory seniority. Because the “within one year” provision appears most proximately in connection with the prohibition against discharge, the Government seeks to give that prohibition, including its temporal term, effect as a command wholly distinct from and unrelated to anything preceding. It treats the clause as a grammatically independent sentence and a substantively unrelated provision, although it is separated from the earlier ones only by a comma followed by the conjunction “and.”
On this premise of complete severability the Government builds its entire case. The premise necessarily regards § 8 (c) as making no express provision for the duration of “other rights,” but as leaving this to be found wholly by implication. The Government then goes on to conclude that the period to be implied is indefinite. Although the statutory security against discharge ends with the prescribed year, the protection given by § 8 (c) to “other rights” is said therefore not only to be effective for that year, cf. Fishgold v. Sullivan Dry dock & Repair Corp., supra, but to continue in full force for as long as the job may last beyond that time. In this view, of course, the result would be to “freeze” the incidents of the employment indefinitely while “freezing” the right to the job itself for only one year.
Difficulties arise in connection with this construction, both in its premise and in its conclusions. One is that the conclusion of indefinite duration would not follow necessarily, if the premise of complete severability were acceptable. On that basis “indefinite duration” as the Government conceives it would not be the only tenable period or even the most probably contemplated one. Several alternatives would be presented. However, the statutory year would not be among them, since it is implicit in the premise of severability that the Act does not apply the concluding clause of § 8 (c) to “other rights” to secure their extension either during or after that time. On the other hand, the Government’s view ignores the usual rule of construction where time is not expressly prescribed, but is evidently to be implied. For generally in such cases duration for a reasonable period is the term accepted by the law rather than permanency or indefinite extension. And this, in varying circumstances, might be found to be longer or shorter than the statutory year prescribed for the job itself.
The real trouble however is in the basic premise both grammatically and substantively. It assumes not only the complete independence of the last clause of § 8 from what precedes, but also that employment within the meaning of the Act is something wholly distinct and separate from its incidents, including seniority, rates of pay, etc. We think, however, that the idea of total severability is altogether untenable. To accept it would do violence both to the grammatical and to the substantive structure of the statute.
The clause is neither an independent sentence nor a disconnected prohibition without significant relationship to what precedes. “From such position” has no meaning severed from the prior language. The restoration provisions define the very character of the place not only to which the veteran must be restored but equally from which he is not to be discharged. Neither grammatically nor substantively could the discharge provision be given effect without reference to the prior “restoration” clauses. Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., supra. Indeed such reference is explicit both in the phrase “from such position” and in the time provision itself, namely, “within one year after such restoration.”
To tear the concluding clause from its context is therefore impossible. It is conjunctive with all that precedes. Nor is it any the more permissible to disconnect its constituent temporal term. There can be no doubt whatever that Congress intended by § 8 (c) to secure the “other rights” guaranteed by it for at least the minimum term of the prescribed one-year period. This indeed was a specific ruling of the Fishgold case.
The employee there had not been discharged in the sense of being thrown out of his job altogether. He simply had been deprived of the opportunity to work by the operation of the seniority system when there was not sufficient work for both himself and other employees with greater seniority after he had been accorded his full standing under the Act. That standing included not only his seniority status as of the time he entered the armed forces, but also all that would have accumulated had he remained at work until the date of his reemployment without going into the service. In the language of § 8 (c) he is to be “considered as having been on furlough or leave of absence during his period of training and service in the land or naval forces.” The Court held, indeed, that the Act did not give him standing to outrank nonveteran employees who had more than the amount of seniority to which he was entitled and to which he had been restored; in other words, that he was not given so-called “superseniority.” But it also squarely held that he was given security not only against complete discharge, but also against demotion, for the statutory year. And demotion was held to mean impairment of “other rights,” including his restored statutory seniority for that year. “If within the statutory period he is demoted, his status, which the Act was designed to protect, has been affected and the old employment relationship has been changed. He would then lose his old position and acquire an inferior one. He would within the meaning of § 8 (c) be 'discharged from such position.’ ” 328 U. S. at 286.
That § 8 (c) applies to secure the protection of “other rights” for at least the statutory year was therefore inherent in the rationalization of the Fishgold decision. To that extent at any rate the concluding clause was held applicable, not severable, concerning them. This of course destroys the Government’s basic premise of the complete severability of that clause and its resulting non-applicability to “other rights.” While the reemployed veteran did not acquire “superseniority,” § 8 (c) gave him the restored standing for the minimum duration of the prescribed year.
It is therefore clear that Congress did not confer the rights given as incidents of the restoration simply to leave the employer free to nullify them at will, once he had made it. Equally clearly Congress did not create them to be operative for the vaguely indefinite and variously applicable period of a reasonable time. But we cannot agree that they were given to last as long as the employment continues, unaffected by expiration of the one-year period.
To accept this conclusion, as we have said, would mean “freezing” the incidents of the employment indefinitely while “freezing” the right to employment itself for only one year. As long as the employee might remain in his job, his pay could not be reduced, his seniority could not be decreased, insurance and other benefits could not be adversely affected. And this would be true, although for valid reasons all of those rights could be changed to the disadvantage of nonveteran employees having equal or greater seniority and other rights than those of the veteran with restored statutory standing. The reemployed veteran thus not only would be restored to his job simply, as the Fishgold case required, “so that he does not lose ground by reason of his absence.” 328 U. S. at 285. He would gain advantages beyond the statutory year over such non-veteran employees.
We do not think Congress had in mind such far-reaching consequences for the nation-wide system of employment, both public and private, when making the statutory provisions for the veteran’s benefit. At the time it acted, we had not declared war and the men who were called to service were being inducted for a year’s training, with the idea if not the assurance that they would return to civilian life and occupations at the end of that year, without prejudice because of their service. Visionary as this notion proved to be, it hardly can be taken to support the view that Congress contemplated “freezing” the specified incidents of restored employment indefinitely.
The Fishgold case, it is true, concerned only events taking place within the statutory year. As the Court of Appeals pointed out in distinguishing this case, 154 F. 2d at 871, the issues there involved no question of the reemployed veteran’s standing after the statutory year. But, as we have said, the decision did hold that § 8 (c) applies to “other rights” for the year. And the rationalization was wholly inconsistent with the idea that those restored rights continued indefinitely after the year, unaffected by its termination. The restored veteran, it was held, could not be disadvantaged by his service to the nation. He “was not to be penalized on his return by reason of his absence from his civilian job.” 328 U. S. at 284. He was to be restored and kept, for the year at least, in the same situation as if he had not gone to war but had remained continuously employed or had been “on furlough or leave of absence.” It is clear, of course, that this statutory addition to the veteran’s seniority status is not automatically deducted from it at the end of his first year of reemployment. But the Fishgold decision also ruled expressly that he was not to gain advantage beyond such restoration, by virtue of the Act’s provisions, so as to acquire “an increase in seniority over what he would have had if he had never entered the armed services.... No step-up or gain in priority can be fairly implied.” 328 U. S. at 285-286.
For the statutory year indeed this meant that the restored rights could not be altered adversely by the usual processes of collective bargaining or of the employer’s administration of general business policy. But if this extraordinary statutory security were to be extended beyond the statutory year, the restored veteran would acquire not simply equality with nonveteran employees having identical status as of the time he returned to work. He would acquire indefinite statutory priority over non-veteran employees, a preferred status which we think not only inharmonious with the basic Fishgold rationalization, but beyond the protection contemplated by Congress.
We are unable therefore to accept the Government’s position. Aside from the events taking place after the Court of Appeals’ decision, which as we have said are not properly here for consideration except upon the question of mootness, Whirls was treated exactly as were other employees in his group having the same seniority and status as he had on the date of his reemployment. There was no discrimination against him as a veteran or otherwise than as a member of that group. Both groups, the former Trailmobile employees and the former Highland employees, who composed his group, contained veterans and nonveterans in large numbers. Both contained veterans in active service and reemployed veterans when the collective agreement was made. Whirls was treated exactly as all other members of his group, the ex-Highland employees, veterans and nonveterans alike. Whether or not the collective agreement was valid, or infringed rights of Whirls and other members of that group apart from rights given by § 8 (c), is not before us, for reasons we have stated. The only question here and the only one we decide is that § 8 (c), although giving the reemployed veteran a special statutory standing in relation to “other rights,” as defined in the Fishgold case, during the statutory year, and creating to that extent a preference for him over nonveterans, did not extend that preference for a longer time.
On the facts therefore we are not required to determine the further question whether the statute would give protection to a reemployed veteran after the statutory year, if it were shown that he then had been demoted beneath his rightful standing under the Act as of the date of his restoration, though nonveteran employees having the same seniority standing as of that time had not been demoted or adversely affected. No such question is presented on the facts of record properly before us for consideration and decision. It will be time enough to consider such an issue whenever it may be presented.
We find it unnecessary therefore to pass upon petitioners’ position in this case, namely, that all protection afforded by virtue of § 8 (c) terminates with the ending of the specified year. We hold only that so much of it ends then as would give the reemployed veteran a preferred standing over employees not veterans having identical seniority rights as of the time of his restoration. We expressly reserve decision upon whether the statutory security extends beyond the one-year period to secure the reemployed veteran against impairment in any respect of equality with such a fellow worker.
These reasons, founded in the literal construction of the statute and the policy clearly evident on its face, are sufficient for disposition of the case. They are not weakened by the Government’s strained and unconvincing citation of the Act’s legislative history.
That argument is grounded in conclusions drawn from changes made without explanation in committee with respect to various provisions finally taking form in § 8, changes affecting bills which eventually became the Selective Training and Service Act and the National Guard Act, 54 Stat. 858. Apart from the inconclusive character of the history, the Government’s contention assumes that the only alternatives presented by the final form of the bill were indefinite duration for the incidents of the employment named and none at all. This ignores the other possibilities considered in this opinion, including duration for a reasonable time. Moreover, as has been noted, the most important committee changes relied upon were made without explanation. The interpretation of statutes cannot safely be made to rest upon mute intermediate legislative maneuvers.
The argument for respondent in this case is of whole cloth in principle with the contention for “superseniority” made and rejected in the Fishgold case, as indeed the District Court and the Court of Appeals regarded it. Lacking any better legislative footing, it equally cannot stand.
Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. This however will be without prejudice from the decision here to respondent’s assertion in the future of any rights he may have against Trailmobile or the collective agent on account of their acts not presented on this record or involved in the issues determined by this decision.
It is so ordered.
54 Stat. 885, 50 U. S. C. App. § 301 et seq. In 1944 there was a minor modification of § 8 not here relevant. 58 Stat. 798; Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. 275, 278, note 1. As amended the Selective Training and Service Act expired in its major part March 31, 1947. Act of June 29, 1946, 60 Stat. 341. But § 8 is saved indefinitely.
“He acquires not only the same seniority he had; his service in the armed services is counted as service in the plant so that he does not lose ground by reason of his absence.” 328 U. S. 275, 285.
Though the fact does not appear affirmatively in the record, the parties agree that Whirls upon his reemployment after his military service received in addition to the seniority he had acquired at the time of his entry into military service also seniority accrued during the period of his service, consistently with the standard of the Fishgold case. This accorded with the then effective collective bargaining agreement which provided: “In case of a national crisis, such as a declared or undeclared war, any man who relinquishes his job with the Company for services rendered to the Government, shall on his return to work retain his place on the seniority list with accumulation,”
See 51 N. L. R. B. 1106, 1107, for details of the companies’ operations.
In the last full year of independent operation, 1942, Highland had approximately 100 employees and produced commodities worth approximately $1,500,000 and Trailmobile had approximately 1,000 employees and produced commodities worth $12,000,000.
51 N. L. R. B. 1106; 53 N. L. R. B. 1248. As the National Labor Relations Board determined that the appropriate bargaining unit was one composed of both Highland and Trailmobile employees, 51 N. L. R. B. at 1113, the ex-Highland employees, of course, lost the election, since there were many more Trailmobile employees. See note 5. The bargaining unit excluded supervisory and certain miscellaneous employees of both companies. 51 N. L. R. B. 1114-1115.
See note 3.
There are holdings that, although a collective bargaining ageist may by contract with the employer modify the seniority structure, it must act in good faith toward all employees. See Seniority Rights in Labor Relations (1937) 47 Yale L. J. 73, 90; Christenson, Seniority Rights under Labor Union Working Agreements (1937) 11 Temp. L. Q. 355, 370-371. The class suit was filed and determined before the decisions were rendered here in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 323 U. S. 210; Wallace Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 323 U. S. 248.
Hess v. The Trailer Co., 31 O. O. 566, 17 O. Supp. 39, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Hamilton County, Ohio, motion to certify record to the Ohio Supreme Court overruled, O. Law Rep., October 15, 1945, 51; 18 Ohio BAR 314.
The pleadings in the class suit have been made part of the record in this case. Neither they nor the findings and judgment of the trial court in that cause disclose any reference to or consideration of § 8 or its possible effects upon that litigation.
See note 8 supra.
See note 9 supra.
Whirls’ petition in this case alleged that after the notice of July 15, 1944, “defendant herein again restored plaintiff to his date of hiring, as regulating his seniority, to-wit: February 8, 1935, pursuant to a directive of the Selective Service System of the United States, and he continued to benefit by such seniority status until on or about September 3,1945, at which time” the defendant transferred him as stated below in the text and threatened, unless restrained, to reduce his pay and seniority rating.
Section 8 (e) of the Selective Training and Service Act, quoted in Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. at 280, note 3.
The Court of Appeals expressly stated its disagreement with the views expressed by Judge Learned Hand, 154 F. 2d 785, writing for the majority of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Fishgold case, the decision in which was affirmed here.
The Government’s brief puts the suggestion and discussion it makes as a matter of not desiring its “failure to explore the nature and causes” of the alleged discrimination to be taken “as an admission either” that there was not unfair discrimination under the Steele, Tunstall and Wallace cases, supra; or that such discrimination “cannot be redressed under Section 8... after the lapse of the initial year of reemployment....”
See note 16.
The Court of Appeals, noting that Whirls was not named as a party to the class suit other than as a member of the class, pointed out that numerous members of the armed forces were involved in both groups of employees, but that their interests as veterans under § 8 were not common to the nonveteran employees in either group. Hence, it concluded, the class suit was not appropriate for rendering a judgment binding upon veteran members of the complaining class as to the question of their seniority under § 8. 154 F. 2d 866, 872.
“Sec. 8. (a) Any person
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to address again the nature of the evidentiary burden placed upon the defendant in an employment discrimination suit brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. The narrow question presented is whether, after the plaintiff has proved a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment, the burden shifts to the defendant to persuade the court by a preponderance of the evidence that legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged employment action existed.
I
Petitioner, the Texas Department of Community Affairs (TDCA), hired respondent, a female, in January 1972, for the position of accounting clerk in the Public Service Careers Division (PSC). PSC provided training and employment opportunities in the public sector for unskilled workers. When hired, respondent possessed several years’ experience in employment training. She was promoted to Field Services Coordinator in July 1972. Her supervisor resigned in November of that year, and respondent was assigned additional duties. Although she applied for the supervisor’s position of Project Director, the position remained vacant for six months.
PSC was funded completely by the United States Department of Labor. The Department was seriously concerned about inefficiencies at PSC. In February 1973, the Department notified the Executive Director of TDCA, B. R. Fuller, that it would terminate PSC the following month. TDCA officials, assisted by respondent, persuaded the Department to continue funding the program, conditioned upon PSC’s reforming its operations. Among the agreed conditions were the appointment of a permanent Project Director and a complete reorganization of the PSC staff.
After consulting with personnel within TDCA, Fuller hired a male from another division of the agency as Project Director. In reducing the PSC staff, he fired respondent along with two other employees, and retained another male, Walz, as the only professional employee in the division. It is undisputed that respondent had maintained her application for the position of Project Director and had requested to remain with TDCA. Respondent soon was rehired by TDCA and assigned to another division of the agency. She received the exact salary paid to the Project Director at PSC, and the subsequent promotions she has received have kept her salary and responsibility commensurate with what she would have received had she been appointed Project Director.
Respondent filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. She alleged that the failure to promote and the subsequent decision to terminate her had been predicated on gender discrimination in violation of Title VII. After a bench trial, the District Court held that neither decision was based on gender discrimination. The court relied on the testimony of Fuller that the employment decisions necessitated by the commands of the Department of Labor were based on consultation among trusted advisers and a nondiscriminatory evaluation of the relative qualifications of the individuals involved. He testified that the three individuals terminated did not work well together, and that TDCA thought that eliminating this problem would improve PSC’s efficiency. The court accepted this explanation as rational and, in effect, found no evidence that the decisions not to promote and to terminate respondent were prompted by gender discrimination.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed in part. 608 F. 2d 563 (1979). The court held that the District Court’s “implicit evidentiary finding” that the male hired as Project Director was better qualified for that position than respondent was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the District Court’s finding that respondent was not discriminated against when she was not promoted. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the District Court’s finding that Fuller’s testimony sufficiently had rebutted respondent’s prima facie case of gender discrimination in the decision to terminate her employment at PSC. The court reaffirmed its previously announced views that the defendant in a Title VII case bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the employment action and that- the defendant also must prove by objective evidence that those hired or promoted were better qualified than the plaintiff. The court found that Fuller’s testimony did not carry either of these evidentiary burdens. It, therefore, reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for computation of backpay. Because the decision of the Court of Appeals as to the burden of proof borne by the defendant conflicts with interpretations of our precedents adopted by other Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari. 447 U. S. 920 (1980). We now vacate the Fifth Circuit’s decision and remand for application of the correct standard.
II
In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), we set forth the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging discriminatory treatment. First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant “to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” Id., at 802. Third, should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination. Id., at 804.
The nature of the burden that shifts to the defendant should be understood in light of the plaintiff’s ultimate and intermediate burdens. The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff. See Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney, 439 U. S. 24, 25, n. 2 (1978); id., at 29 (Stevens, J., dissenting). See generally 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2489 (3d ed. 1940) (the burden of persuasion “never shifts”). The McDonnell Douglas division of intermediate evidentiary burdens serves to bring the litigants and the court expeditiously and fairly to this ultimate question.
The burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous. The plaintiff must prove by a proponderence of the evidence that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified, but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. The prima facie case serves an important function in the litigation: it eliminates the most common nondiscriminatory reasons for the plaintiff's rejection. See Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 358, and n. 44 (1977). As the Court explained in Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 577 (1978), the prima facie case “raises an inference of discrimination only because we presume these acts, if otherwise unexplained, are more likely than not based on the consideration of impermissible factors.” Establishment of the prima facie case in effect creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee. If the trier of fact believes the plaintiff’s evidence, and if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff because no issue of fact remains in the case.
The burden that shifts to the defendant, therefore, is to rebut the presumption of discrimination by producing evidence that the plaintiff was rejected, or someone else was preferred, for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. The defendant need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons. See Sweeney, supra, at 25. It is sufficient if the defendant’s evidence raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the plaintiff. To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection. The explanation provided must be legally sufficient to justify a judgment for the defendant. If the defendant carries this burden of production, the presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted, and the factual inquiry proceeds to a new level of specificity. Placing this burden of production on the defendant thus serves simultaneously to meet the plaintiff’s prima facie case by presenting a legitimate reason for the action and to frame the factual issue with sufficient clarity so that the plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext. The sufficiency of the defendant’s evidence should be evaluated by the extent to which it fulfills these functions.
The plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion. She now must have the opportunity to demonstrate that the proffered reason wí ■ not the true reason for the employment decision. This burden now merges with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that she has been the victim of intentional discrimination. She may succeed in this either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U. S., at 804-805.
Ill
In reversing the judgment of the District Court that the discharge of respondent from PSC was unrelated to her sex, the Court of Appeals adhered to two rules it had developed to elaborate the defendant’s burden of proof. First, the defendant must prove by a preponderence of the evidence that legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the discharge existed. 608 F. 2d, at 567. See Turner v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 555 F. 2d 1251, 1255 (CA5 1977). Second, to satisfy this burden, the defendant “must prove that those he hired . . . were somehow better qualified than was plaintiff; in other words, comparative evidence is needed.” 608 F. 2d, at 567 (emphasis in original). See East v. Romine, Inc., 518 F. 2d 332, 339-340 (CA5 1975).
A
The Court of Appeals has misconstrued the nature of the burden that McDonnell Douglas and its progeny place on the defendant. See Part II, supra. We stated in Sweeney that “the employer’s burden is satisfied if he simply ‘explains what he has done’ or ‘productes] evidence of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.’ ” 439 U. S., at 25, n. 2, quoting id., at 28, 29 (Stevens, J., dissenting). It is plain that the Court of Appeals required much more: it placed on the defendant the burden of persuading the court that it had convincing, objective reasons for preferring the chosen applicant above the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals distinguished Sweeney on the ground that the case held only that the defendant did not have the burden of proving the absence of discriminatory intent. But this distinction slights the rationale of Sweeney and of our other eases. We have stated consistently that the employee’s prima facie case of discrimination will be rebutted if the employer articulates lawful reasons for the action; that is, to satisfy this intermediate burden, the employer need only produce admissible evidence which would allow the trier of fact rationally to conclude that the employment decision had not been motivated by discriminatory animus. The Court of Appeals would require the defendant to introduce evidence which, in the absence of any evidence of pretext, would persuade the trier of fact that the employment action was lawful. This exceeds what properly can be demanded to satisfy a burden of production.
The court placed the burden of persuasion on the defendant apparently because it feared that “[i]f an employer need only articulate — not prove — a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his action, he may compose fictitious, but legitimate, reasons for his actions.” Turner v. Texas Instruments, Inc., supra, at 1255 (emphasis in original). We do not believe, however, that limiting the defendant’s evidentiary obligation to a burden of production will unduly hinder the plaintiff. First, as noted above, the defendant’s explanation of its legitimate reasons must be clear and reasonably specific. Supra, at 255. See Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F. 2d 1003, 1011-1012, n. 5 (CA1 1979). This obligation arises both from the necessity of rebutting the inference of discrimination arising from the prima facie ease and from the requirement that the plaintiff be afforded “a full and fair opportunity” to demonstrate pretext. Second, although the defendant does not bear a formal burden of persuasion, the defendant nevertheless. retains an incentive to persuade the trier of fact that the employment decision was lawful. Thus, the defendant normally will attempt to prove the factual basis for its explanation. Third, the liberal discovery rules applicable to any civil suit in federal court are supplemented in a Title VII suit by the plaintiff’s access to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s investigatory files concerning her complaint. See EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 449 U. S. 590 (1981). Given these factors, we are unpersuaded that the plaintiff will find it particularly difficult to prove that a proffered explanation lacking a factual basis is a pretext. We remain confident that the McDonnell Douglas framework permits the plaintiff meriting relief to demonstrate intentional discrimination.
B
The Court of Appeals also erred in requiring the defendant to prove by objective evidence that the person hired or promoted was more qualified than the plaintiff. McDonnell Douglas teaches that it is the plaintiff’s task to demonstrate that similarly situated employees were not treated equally. 411 U. S., at 804. The Court of Appeals’ rule would require the employer to show that the plaintiff’s objective qualifications were inferior to those of the person selected. If it cannot, a court would, in effect, conclude that it has discriminated.
The court’s procedural rule harbors a substantive error. Title VII prohibits all discrimination in employment based upon race, sex, and national origin. “The broad, overriding interest, shared by employer, employee, and consumer, is efficient and trustworthy workmanship assured through fair and . . . neutral employment and personnel decisions.” McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 801. Title VII, however, does not demand that an employer give preferential treatment to minorities or women. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (j). See Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U. S. 193, 205-206 (1979). The statute was not intended to “diminish traditional management prerogatives.” Id., at 207. It does not require the employer to restructure his employment practices to maximize the number of minorities and women hired. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 577-578 (1978).
The views of the Court of Appeals can be read, we think, as requiring the employer to hire the minority or female applicant whenever that person’s objective qualifications were equal to those of a white male applicant. But Title VII does not obligate an employer to accord this preference. Rather, the employer has discretion to choose among equally qualified candidates, provided the decision is not based upon unlawful criteria. The fact that a court may think that th employer misjudged the qualifications of the applicants does not in itself expose him to Title VII liability, although this may be probative of whether the employer’s reasons are pretexts for discrimination. Loeb v. Textron, Inc., supra, at 1012, n. 6; see Lieberman v. Gant, 630 F. 2d 60, 65 (CA2 1980).
IV
In summary, the Court of Appeals erred by requiring the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating the respondent and that the person retained in her stead had superior objective qualifications for the position. When the plaintiff has proved a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant bears only the burden of explaining clearly the nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Among the problems identified were overstaffing, lack of fiscal control, poor bookkeeping, lack of communication among PSC staff, and the lack of a full-time Project Director. Letter of March 20, 1973, from Charles Johnson to B. R. Fuller, reprinted in App. 38-40.
See id., at 39.
The Court of Appeals also vacated the District Court’s judgment that petitioner did not violate Title YII’s equal pay provision, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (h), but that decision is not challenged here.
See, e. g., Lieberman v. Gant, 630 F. 2d 60 (CA2 1980); Jackson v. U. S. Steel Corp., 624 F. 2d 436 (CA3 1980); Ambush v. Montgomery County Government, 22 FEP Cases 1101 (CA4 1980); Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F. 2d 1003 (CA1 1979). But see Vaughn v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 620 F. 2d 655 (CA8 1980), cert. pending, No. 80-276.
We have recognized that the factual issues, and therefore the character of the evidence presented, differ when the plaintiff claims that a facially neutral employment policy has a discriminatory impact on protected classes. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U. S., at 802, n. 14; Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 335-336, and n. 15 (1977).
In McDonnell Douglas, supra, we described an appropriate model for a prima facie case of racial discrimination. The plaintiff must show: .. “(i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant’s qualifications.” 411 U. S., at 802.
We added, however, that this standard is not inflexible, as “[t]he facts necessarily will vary in Title VII cases, and the specification above of the prima facie proof required from respondent is not necessarily applicable in every respect in differing factual situations.” Id., at 802, n. 13.
In the instant case, it is not seriously contested that respondent has proved a prima facie case. She showed that she was a qualified woman who sought an available position, but the position was left open for several months before she finally was rejected in favor of a male, Walz, who had been under her supervision.
The phrase "prima facie case” not only may denote the establishment of a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption, but also may be used by courts to describe the plaintiff’s burden of producing enough evidence to permit the trier of fact to infer the fact at issue. 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2494 (3d ed. 1940). McDonnell Douglas should have made it apparent that in the Title VII context we use “prima facie case” in the former sense.
This evidentiary relationship between the presumption created by a prima facie case and the consequential burden of production placed on the defendant is a traditional feature of the common law. “The word 'presumption’ properly used refers only to a device for allocating the production burden.” F. James & G. Hazard, Civil Procedure § 7.9, p. 255 (2d ed. 1977) (footnote omitted). See Fed. Rule Evid. 301. See generally 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence §2491 (3d ed. 1940). Cf. J. Maguire, Evidence, Common Sense and Common Law 185-186 (1947). Usually, assessing the burden of production helps the judge determine whether the litigants have created an issue of fact to be decided by the jury. In a Title VII case, the allocation of burdens and the creation of a presumption by the establishment of a prima facie ease is intended progressively to sharpen the inquiry into the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination.
An articulation not admitted into evidence will not suffice. Thus, the defendant cannot meet its burden merely through an answer to the complaint or by argument of counsel.
See generally J. Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on Evidence 346 (1898). In saying that the presumption drops from the case, we do not imply that the trier of fact no longer may consider evidence previously introduced by the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case. A satisfactory explanation by the defendant destroys the legally mandatory inference of discrimination arising from the plaintiff’s initial evidence. Nonetheless, this evidence and inferences properly drawn therefrom may be considered by the trier of fact on the issue of whether the defendant’s explanation is pretextual. Indeed, there may be some cases where the plaintiff’s initial evidence, combined with effective cross-examination of the defendant, will suffice to discredit the defendant’s explanation.
The court reviewed the defendant’s evidence and explained its deficiency:
“Defendant failed to introduce comparative factual data concerning Burdine and Walz. Fuller merely testified that he discharged and retained personnel in the spring shakeup at TDCA primarily on the recommendations of subordinates and that he considered Walz qualified for the position he was retained to do. Fuller failed to specify any objective criteria on which he based the decision to discharge Burdine and retain Walz. He stated only that the action was in the best interest of the program and that there had been some friction within the department that might be alleviated by Burdine’s discharge. Nothing in the record indicates whether he examined Walz’ ability to work well with others. This court in East found such unsubstantiated assertions of ‘qualification’ and ‘prior work record’ insufficient absent data that will allow a true comparison of the individuals hired and rejected.” 608 F. 2d, at 568.
Because the Court of Appeals applied the wrong legal standard to the evidence, we have no occasion to decide whether it erred in not reviewing the District Court’s finding of no intentional discrimination under the “clearly erroneous” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 (a). Addressing this issue in this case would be inappropriate because the District Court made no findings on the intermediate questions posed by McDonnell Douglas.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Respondent Maxwell Hoffman was convicted óf first-degree murder and sentenced to death. See State v. Hoffman, 123 Idaho 638, 851 P. 2d 934 (1993). Hoffman sought federal habeas relief on the grounds that, inter alia, his counsel had been ineffective during both pretrial plea bargaining and the sentencing phase of his trial. The District Court, finding that Hoffman had received ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing but not during plea bargaining, granted Hoffman’s federal habeas petition in part and ordered the State of Idaho to resentence him. Civ. Action No. 94-0200-S-BLW (Mar. 30, 2002), App. to Pet. for Cert. 38, 65. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision regarding ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing, but reversed with respect to the ineffective-assistance claim during plea negotiations. 455 F. 3d 926, 942 (2006). The Ninth Circuit thus granted the writ, ordering the District Court to direct the State either to release Hoffman or to “offe[r] [him] a plea agreement with the ‘same material terms’ offered in the original plea agreement.” Id., at 943. The State sought, and we granted, certiorari. Post, p. 1008.
Hoffman now abandons his claim that counsel was ineffective during plea bargaining. See Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Decision Below and Dismiss the Cause as Moot. He “no longer seeks or desires the relief ordered by the Court of Appeals with respect to the plea offer.” Id., at 3. Rather, Hoffman now “wishes to withdraw his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with plea bargaining” and asks this Court to dismiss his appeal with prejudice on that issue so that he may proceed with the resentencing ordered by the District Court. Ibid.
The State, in its response, notes that Hoffman’s requested relief is “virtually identical to the request made by the state in its Petition for Certiorari.” Response to Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Decision Below and Dismiss the Cause as Moot, p. 3. The State therefore agrees that the instant motion to vacate and dismiss with prejudice moots Hoffman’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and asks that the motion be granted.
We grant respondent’s motion. Because his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel during pretrial plea bargaining is moot, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent that it addressed that claim. The case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with directions that it instruct the United States District Court for the District of Idaho to dismiss the relevant claim with prejudice. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193, 200-201 (1988); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39-40 (1950).
It is so ordered.
The State initially cross-appealed the District Court’s grant of Hoffman’s habeas petition for ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The State, however, subsequently withdrew that cross-appeal, leaving in place the District Court’s order granting habeas relief as to Hoffman’s death sentence. 455 F. 3d 926, 931 (CA9 2006).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellants are women who contend that an Indiana welfare regulation governing eligibility for state and federal aid to dependent children contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment and the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (10). The regulation provides that a person who seeks assistance due to separation or the desertion of a spouse is not entitled to aid until the spouse has been continuously absent for at least six months, unless there are exceptional circumstances of need. Burns Ind. Admin. Rules & Regs. (52-1001 )-2 (1967). Appellants brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, basing jurisdiction on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343, and seeking both declaratory and injunc-tive relief. A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281. After a “preliminary hearing on defendants’ ” motion to dismiss “at which the court” received evidence upon which to resolve the matter, the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that none of the claimants had exercised her right under Indiana law to appeal from a county decision denying welfare assistance, Burns Ind. Admin. Rules & Regs. (52-1211)-1 (Supp. 1970), and therefore appellants had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. In the alternative, the court held that the pleadings did not present a substantial federal question and that the court lacked jurisdiction under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. §§ 2201, 2202. Carter v. Stanton, No. IP 70-C-124 (SD Ind., Dec. 11, 1970). This direct appeal followed and we noted probable jurisdiction. 402 U. S. 994 (1971).
Contrary to the State’s view, our jurisdiction of this appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 is satisfactorily established. Sullivan v. Alabama State Bar, 394 U. S. 812, aff’g 295 F. Supp. 1216 (MD Ala. 1969); Whitney Stores, Inc. v. Summerford, 393 U. S. 9, aff’g 280 F. Supp. 406 (SC 1968). Also, the District Court plainly had jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343. Damico v. California, 389 U. S. 416 (1967). Damico, an indistinguishable case, likewise establishes that exhaustion is not required in circumstances such as those presented here. Cf. McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668 (1963); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961).
Finally, if the court’s characterization of the federal question presented as insubstantial was based on the face of the complaint, as it seems to have been, it was error. Cf. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969); Damico v. California, supra. But it appears that at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, which was based in part on the asserted failure “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” (App. 19), matters outside the pleadings were presented and not excluded by the court. The court was therefore required by Rule 12 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to treat the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment and to dispose of it as provided in Rule 56. Under Rule 56, summary judgment cannot be granted unless there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If this is the course the District Court followed, its order is opaque and unilluminating as to either the relevant facts or the law with respect to the merits of appellants’ claim. In this posture of the case, we are unconvinced that summary judgment was properly entered. The judgment of the District Court is therefore vacated and the case is remanded to that court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Douglas.
I agree that both this Court and the District Court have jurisdiction to entertain this case and that the appellants were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before launching their challenge. But, although the District Court should have made more complete findings of fact and conclusions of law, I would not remand simply on this score but would hold that the appellants are entitled to judgment.
The problem is simple and should be disposed of here.
The federal Act defines a “dependent child” as a “needy child . . . who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of . . . continued absence from the home.” Indiana by its Board of Public Welfare has adopted the federal definition of “needy child.”
The term “continued absence from the home” is not defined in the federal Act, though HEW recommends “that no period of time be specified as a basis for establishing continued absence as an eligibility factor.” Indiana, however, has established by rule a definition of “continued absence” in case of “desertion or separation.” In those two instances it makes “continued absence” mean that “the absence shall have been continuous” for at least six months, except when the department of welfare finds there are “exceptional circumstances of need.”
A dependent child gets aid immediately and continuously in case the parent is incarcerated or in case the parent is inducted into the armed services. The six-month rule creates a separate class of needy children who by the federal standard may be as “needy” as those in the other two categories.
The federal Act directs that “aid to families with dependent children shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals.” The federal regulation requires decisions on applications to be made “promptly” and “not in excess of” 30 days and that the assistance check or notification of denial be mailed within that period. As noted, the federal Act contains no waiting period to establish “continued absence.” And the HEW Handbook, already referred to, states as respects “continued absence” that “[a] child comes within this interpretation if for any reason his parent is absent.”
Here, as in California Human Resources Dept. v. Java, 402 U. S. 121, 135, the State’s program “tends to frustrate” the Social Security Act. King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, “establishes that, at least in the absence of congressional authorization for the exclusion clearly evidenced from the Social Security Act or its legislative history, a state eligibility standard that excludes persons eligible for assistance under federal AFDC standards violates the Social Security Act and is therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause.” Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282, 286. While a State has a legitimate interest in preventing fraud, there are, as we said in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 637, “less drastic means” available “to minimize that hazard.” Rather than remanding for a lower court determination of the law of the case, the merits ought to be decided now inasmuch as (a) the facts are essentially undisputed, (b) the appellants’ claim based on the federal Act is plainly correct, and (c) further litigation would work a hardship upon welfare recipients affected by the Indiana rule. See generally Note, Individualized Criminal Justice In The Supreme Court: A Study Of Dispositional Decision Making, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 1260 (1968); Bell, Appellate Court Opinions And The Remand Process, 2 Ga. L. Rev. 526, 536 (1968).
The Indiana regulation so plainly collides with the federal Act that I would end this frivolous defense to this welfare litigation by deciding the merits and reversing by reason of the Supremacy Clause.
49 Stat. 629, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 606 (a).
Ind. State Bd. of Pub. Welfare Reg. 2-400 (a).
Dept. of Health, Education, & Welfare Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, pt. IV, §3422.5 (1968).
Bums, Ind. Admin. Rules & Regs. (52-1001)-2 (1967): “When the continued absence is due to desertion or separation, the absence shall have been continuous for a period of at least six [6] months prior to the date of application for assistance to dependent children; except that under exceptional circumstances of need and where it is determined that the absence of a parent is actual and bona fide an application may be filed and a child may be considered immediately eligible upon a special finding of the county department of public welfare setting forth the facts and reasons for such action.”
42 U. S. C. §602 (a) (10).
45 CFR §206.10 (3), 36 Fed. Reg. 3864.
N. 3, supra.
Part IV, §3422.2, of the Handbook provides:
“Continued absence of the parent from the home constitutes the reason for deprivation of parental support or care under the following circumstances:
“1. When the parent is out of the home;
“2. When the nature of the absence is such as either to interrupt or to terminate the parent’s functioning as a provider of maintenance, physical care, or guidance for the child; and
“3. When the known or indefinite duration of the absence precludes counting on the parent’s performance of his function in planning for the present support or care of the child.
“A child comes within this interpretation if for any reason his parent is absent, and this absence interferes with the child’s receiving maintenance, physical care, or guidance from his parent, and precludes the parent’s being counted on for support or care of the child. For example: The child’s father has left home, without forewarning his family, and the mother really does not know why he left home, nor when or whether he will return.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We here review judgments of the Court of Appeals setting aside and refusing to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board which found respondent Darlington guilty of an unfair labor practice by reason of having permanently closed its plant following petitioner union’s election as the bargaining representative of Dar-lington’s employees.
Darlington Manufacturing Company was a South Carolina corporation operating one textile mill. A majority of Darlington’s stock was held by Deering Mil-liken, a New York “selling house” marketing textiles produced by others. Deering Milliken in turn was controlled by Roger Milliken, president of Darlington, and by other members of the Milliken family. The National Labor Relations Board found that the Milliken family, through Deering Milliken, operated 17 textile manufacturers, including- Darlington, whose products, manufactured in 27 different mills, were marketed through Deering Milliken.
In March 1956 petitioner Textile Workers Union initiated an organizational campaign at Darlington which the company resisted vigorously in various ways, including threats to close the mill if the union won a representation election. On September 6, 1956, the union won an election by a narrow margin. When Roger Milliken was advised of the union victory, he decided to call a meeting of the Darlington board of directors to consider closing the mill. Mr. Milliken testified before the Labor Board:
“I felt that as a result of the campaign that had been conducted and the promises and statements made in these letters that had been distributed [favoring unionization], that if before we had had some hope, possible hope of achieving competitive [costs] ... by taking advantage of new machinery that was being put in, that this hope had diminished as a result of the election because a majority of the employees had voted in favor of the union . . . .” (R. 457.)
The board of directors met on September 12 and voted to liquidate the corporation, action which was approved by the stockholders on October 17. The plant ceased operations entirely in November, and all plant machinery and equipment were sold piecemeal at auction in December.
The union filed charges with the Labor Board claiming that Darlington had violated §§ 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by closing its plant, and §8 (a)(5) by refusing to bargain with the union after the election. The Board, by a divided vote, found that Darlington had been closed because of the antiunion animus of Roger Milliken, and held that to be a violation of § 8 (a)(3). The Board also found Dar-lington to be part of a single integrated employer group controlled by the Milliken family through Deering Milli-ken; therefore Deering Milliken could be held liable for the unfair labor practices of Darlington. Alternatively, since Darlington was a part of the Deering Milliken enterprise, Deering Milliken had violated the Act by closing part of its business for a discriminatory purpose. The Board ordered back pay for all Darlington employees until they obtained substantially equivalent work or were put on preferential hiring lists at the other Deering Milli-ken mills. Respondent Deering Milliken was ordered to bargain with the union in regard to details of compliance with the Board order. 139 N. L. R. B. 241.
On review, the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, set aside the order and denied enforcement by a divided vote. 325 F. 2d 682. The Court of Appeals held that even accepting arguendo the Board’s determination that Deeding Milliken had the status of a single employer, a company has the absolute right to close out a part or all of its business regardless of antiunion motives. The court therefore did not review the Board’s finding that Deering Milliken was a single integrated employer. We granted certiorari, 377 U. S. 903, to consider the important questions involved. We hold that so far as the Labor Relations Act is concerned, an employer has the absolute right to terminate his entire business for any reason he pleases, but disagree with the Court of Appeals that such right includes the ability to close part of a business no matter what the reason. We- conclude that the cause must be remanded to the Board for further proceedings.
Preliminarily it should be observed that both petitioners argue that the Darlington closing violated § 8 (a) (1) as well as § 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We think, however, that the Board was correct in treating the closing only under § 8 (a)(3). Section 8 (a)(1) provides that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of” § 7 rights. Naturally, certain business decisions will, to some degree, interfere with concerted activities by employees. But it is only when the interference with § 7 rights outweighs the business justification for the employer’s action that §8 (a)(1) is violated. See, e. g., Labor Board v. Steelworkers, 357 U. S. 357; Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board, 324 U. S. 793. A violation of § 8 (a)(1) alone therefore presupposes an act which is unlawful even absent a discriminatory motive. Whatever may be the limits of § 8 (a)(1), some employer decisions are so peculiarly matters of management prerogative that they would never constitute violations of § 8 (a)(1), whether or not they involved sound business judgment, unless they also violated § 8 (a) (3). Thus it is not questioned in this case that an employer has the right to terminate his business, whatever the impact of such action on concerted activities, if the decision to close is motivated by other than discriminatory reasons.’ But such action, if discriminatorily motivated, is encompassed within the literal language of § 8 (a)(3). We therefore deal with the Darlington closing under that section.
I.
We consider first the argument, advanced by the petitioner union but not by the Board, and rejected by the Court of Appeals, that an employer may not go completely out of business without running afoul of the Labor Relations Act if such action is prompted by a desire to avoid unionization. Given the Board’s findings on the issue of motive, acceptance of this contention would carry the day for the Board’s conclusion that the closing of this plant was an unfair labor practice, even on the assumption that Darlington is to be regarded as an independent unrelated employer. A proposition that a single businessman cannot choose to go out of business if he wants to would represent such a startling innovation that it should not be entertained without the clearest manifestation of legislative intent or unequivocal judicial precedent so construing the Labor Relations Act. We find neither.
So far as legislative manifestation is concerned, it is sufficient to say that there is not the slightest indication in the history of the Wagner Act or of the Taft-Hartley Act that Congress envisaged any such result under either statute.
As for judicial precedent, the Board recognized that “[t]here is no decided case directly dispositive of Darling-ton’s claim that it had an absolute right to close its mill, irrespective of motive.” 139 N. L. R. B., at 250. The only language by this Court in any way adverting to this problem is found in Southport Petroleum Co. v. Labor Board, 315 U. S. 100, 106, where it was stated:
“Whether there was a bona fide discontinuance and a true change of ownership — which would terminate the duty of reinstatement created by the Board’s order — or merely a disguised continuance of the old employer, does not clearly appear . . . .”
The courts of appeals have generally assumed that a complete cessation of business will remove an employer from future coverage by the Act. Thus the Court of Appeals said in these cases: The Act “does not compel a person to become or remain an employee. It does not compel one to become or remain an employer. Either may withdraw from that status with immunity, so long as the obligations of any employment contract have been met.” 325 F. 2d, at 685. The Eighth Circuit, in Labor Board v. New Madrid Mfg. Co., 215 F. 2d 908, 914, was equally explicit:
“But none of this can be taken to mean that an employer does not have the absolute right, at all times, to permanently close and go out of business ... for whatever reason he may choose, whether union animosity or anything else, and without his being thereby left subject to a remedial liability under the Labor Management Relations Act for such unfair labor practices as he may have committed in the enterprise, except up to the time that such actual and permanent closing . . . has occurred.”
The AFL-CIO suggests in its amicus brief that Dar-lington’s action was similar to a discriminatory lockout, which is prohibited “ ‘because designed to frustrate organizational efforts, to destroy or undermine bargaining representation, or to evade the duty to bargain.’ ” One of the purposes of the Labor Relations Act is to prohibit the discriminatory use of economic weapons in an effort to obtain future benefits. The discriminatory lockout designed to destroy a union, like a “runaway shop,” is a lever which has been used to discourage collective employee activities in the future. But a complete liquidation of a business yields no such future benefit for the employer, if the termination is bona fide. It may be motivated more by spite against the union than by business reasons, but it is not the type of discrimination which is prohibited by the Act. The personal satisfaction that such an employer may derive from standing on his beliefs and the mere possibility that other employers will follow his example are surely too remote to be considered dangers at which the labor statutes were aimed. Although employees may be prohibited from engaging in a strike under certain conditions, no one would consider it a violation of the Act for the same employees to quit their employment en masse, even if motivated by a desire to ruin the employer. The very permanence of such action would negate any future economic benefit to the employees. The employer’s right to go out of business is no different.
We are not presented here with the case of a “runaway shop,” whereby Darlington would transfer its work to another plant or open a new plant in another locality to replace its closed plant. Nor are we concerned with a shutdown where the employees, by renouncing the union, could cause the plant to reopen. Such cases would involve discriminatory employer action for the purpose of obtaining some benefit from the employees in the future. We hold here only that when an employer closes his entire business, even if the liquidation is motivated by vindictiveness toward the union, such action is not an unfair labor practice.
f — Í
While we thus agree with the Court of Appeals that viewing Darlington as an independent employer the liquidation of its business was not an unfair labor practice, we cannot accept the lower court’s view that the same conclusion necessarily follows if Darlington is regarded as an integral part of the Deering Milliken enterprise.
The closing of an entire business, even though discriminatory, ends the employer-employee relationship; the force of such a closing is entirely spent as to that business when termination of the enterprise takes place. On the other hand, a discriminatory partial closing may have repercussions on what remains of the business, affording employer leverage for discouraging the free exercise of § 7 rights among remaining employees of much the same kind as that found to exist in the “runaway shop” and “temporary closing” cases. See supra, pp. 272-273. Moreover, a possible remedy open to the Board in such a case, like the remedies available in the “runaway shop” and “temporary closing” cases, is to order reinstatement of the discharged employees in the other parts of the business. No such remedy is available when an entire business has been terminated. By analogy to those cases involving a continuing enterprise we are constrained to hold, in disagreement with the Court of Appeals, that a partial closing is an unfair labor practice under § 8 (a)(3) if motivated by a purpose to chill unionism in any of the remaining plants of the single employer and if the employer may reasonably have foreseen that such closing would likely have that effect.
While we have spoken in terms of a “partial closing” in the context of the Board’s finding that Darlington was part of a larger single enterprise controlled by the Milli-ken family, we do not mean to suggest that an organizational integration of plants or corporations is a necessary prerequisite to the establishment of such a violation of § 8 (a) (3). If the persons exercising control over a plant that is being closed for antiunion reasons (1) have an interest in another business, whether or not affiliated with or engaged in the same line of commercial activity as the closed plant, of sufficient substantiality to give promise of their reaping a benefit from the discouragement of unionization in that business; (2) act to' close their plant with the purpose of producing such a result; and (3) occupy a relationship to the other business which makes it realistically foreseeable that its employees will fear that such business will also be closed down if they persist in organizational activities, we think that an unfair labor practice has been made out.
Although the Board’s single employer finding necessarily embraced findings as to Roger Milliken and the Milliken family which, if sustained by the Court of Appeals, would satisfy the elements of “interest” and “relationship” with respect to other parts of the Deering Milliken enterprise, that and the other Board findings fall short of establishing the factors of “purpose” and “effect” which are vital requisites of the general principles that govern a case of this kind.
Thus, the Board’s findings as to the purpose and foreseeable effect of the Darlington closing pertained only to its impact on the Darlington employees. No findings were made as to the purpose and effect of the closing with respect to the employees in the other plants comprising the Deering Milliken group. It does not suffice to establish the unfair labor practice charged here to argue that the Darlington closing necessarily had an adverse impact upon unionization in such other plants. We have heretofore observed that employer action which has a foreseeable consequence of discouraging concerted activities generally does not amount to a violation of § 8 (a) (3) in the absence of a showing of motivation which is aimed at achieving the prohibited effect. See Teamsters Local v. Labor Board, 365 U. S. 667, and the concurring opinion therein, at 677. In an area which trenches so closely upon otherwise legitimate employer prerogatives, we consider the absence of Board findings on this score a fatal defect in its decision. The Court of Appeals for its part did not deal with the question of purpose and effect at all, since it concluded that an employer’s right to close down his entire business because of distaste for unionism, also embraced a partial closing so motivated.
Apart from this, the Board’s holding should not be accepted or rejected without court review of its single employer finding, judged, however, in accordance with the general principles set forth above. Review of that finding, which the lower court found unnecessary on its view of the cause, now becomes necessary in light of our holding in this part of our opinion, and is a task that devolves upon the Court of Appeals in the first instance. Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474.
In these circumstances, we think the proper disposition of this cause is to require that it be remanded to the Board so as to afford the Board the opportunity to make further findings on the issue of purpose and effect. See, e. g., Labor Board v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 314 U. S. 469, 479-480. This is particularly appropriate here since the cases involve issues of first impression. If such findings are made, the cases will then be in a posture for further review by the Court of Appeals on all issues. Accordingly, without intimating any view as to how any of these matters should eventuate, we vacate the judgments of the Court of Appeals and remand the cases to that court with instructions to remand them to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the decision of these cases.
Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Deering Milliken & Co. owned 41% of the Darlington stock. Cotwool Manufacturing Corp., another textile manufacturer, owned 18% of the stock. In 1960 Deering Milliken & Co. was merged into Cotwool, the survivor being named Deering Milliken, Inc.
The Milliken family owned only 6% of the Darlington stock, but held a majority stock interest in both Deering Milliken & Co. and Cotwool, see n. 1, supra.
The Board found that Darlington had interrogated employees and threatened to close the mill if the union won the election. After the decision to liquidate was made (see infra), Darlington employees were told that the decision to close was caused by the election, and they were encouraged to sign a petition disavowing the union. These practices were held to violate § 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, n. 4, infra, and that part of the Board decision is not challenged here.
National Labor Relations Act, §§8 (a)(1) and (3), as amended, 61 Stat. 140 (1947), 29 U. S. C. §§158 (a)(1) and (3) (1958 ed.), provide in pertinent part:
“(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 [section 157 of this title];
“(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization . . . .”
The union asked for a bargaining conference on September 12, 1956 (the day that the board of directors voted to liquidate), but was told to await certification by the Board. The union was certified on October 24, and did meet with Darlington officials in November, but no actual bargaining took place. The Board found this to be a violation of §8 (a)(5). Such a finding was in part based on the determination that the plant closing was an unfair labor practice, and no argument is made that § 8 (a) (5) requires an employer to bargain concerning a purely business decision to terminate his enterprise. Cf. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. Labor Board, 379 U. S. 203.
Since the closing was held to be illegal, the Board found that the gradual discharges of all employees during November and December constituted §8 (a)(1) violations. The propriety of this determination depends entirely on whether the decision to close the plant violated § 8 (a) (3).
Members Leedom and Rodgers agreed with the trial examiner that Deering Milliken was not a single employer. Member Rodgers dissented in arguing that Darlington had not violated § 8 (a) (3) by closing.
The Board did find that Darlington’s discharges of employees following the decision to close violated §8 (a)(1). See n. 6, supra.
NLRA § 7, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 157 (1958 ed.), provides:
“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, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8 (a) (3) [section 158 (a)(3) of this title].”
It is also clear that the ambiguous act of closing a plant following the election of a union is not, absent an inquiry into the employer’s motive, inherently discriminatory. We are thus not confronted with a situation where the employer “must be held to intend the very consequences which foreseeable and inescapably flow from his actions . . (Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S. 221, 228), in which the Board could find a violation of § 8 (a) (3) without an examination into motive. See Radio Officers v. Labor Board, 347 U. S. 17, 42-43; Teamsters Local v. Labor Board, 365 U. S. 667, 674-676.
The Board predicates its argument on the finding that Deering Milliken was an integrated enterprise, and does not consider it necessary to argue that an employer may not go completely out of business for antiunion reasons. Brief for National Labor Relations Board, p. 3, n. 2.
In New Madrid the business was transferred to a new employer, which was held liable for the unfair labor practices committed by its predecessor before closing. The closing itself was not found to be an unfair labor practice.
Brief for AFL-CIO, p. 7, quoting from Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Local, 353 U. S. 87, 93. This brief was incorporated by reference as Point I of the petitioner union’s brief in this Court.
The Darlington property and equipment could not be sold as a unit, and were eventually auctioned off piecemeal. We therefore are not confronted with a sale of a going concern, which might present different considerations under §§ 8 (a)(3) and (5). Cf. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U. S. 543; Labor Board v. Deena Artware, Inc., 361 U. S. 398.
Cf. NLKA § 8 (c), 29 U. S. C. § 158 (c) (1958 ed.). Different considerations would arise were it made to appear that the closing employer was acting pursuant to some arrangement or understanding with other employers to discourage employee organizational activities in their businesses.
E. g., Labor Board v. Preston Feed Corp., 309 F. 2d 346; Labor Board v. Wallick, 198 F. 2d 477. An analogous problem is presented where a department is closed for antiunion reasons but the work is continued by independent contractors. See, e. g., Labor Board v. Kelly & Picerne, Inc., 298 F. 2d 895; Jays Foods, Inc. v. Labor Board, 292 F. 2d 317; Labor Board v. R. C. Mahon Co., 269 F. 2d 44; Labor Board v. Bank of America, 130 F. 2d 624; Williams Motor Co. v. Labor Board, 128 F. 2d 960.
After the decision to close the plant, Darlington accepted no new orders, and merely continued operations for a time to fill pending orders. 139 N. L. R. B., at 244.
E. g., Labor Board v. Norma Mining Corp., 206 F. 2d 38. Similarly, if all employees are discharged but the work continues with new personnel, the effect is to discourage any future union activities. See Labor Board v. Waterman S. S. Co., 309 U. S. 206; Labor Board v. National Garment Co., 166 F. 2d 233; Labor Board v. Stremel, 141 F. 2d 317.
All of the eases to which we have been cited involved closings found to have been motivated, at least in part, by the expectation of achieving future benefits. See cases cited in notes 16, 18, supra. The two cases which are urged as indistinguishable from Darlington are Labor Board v. Savoy Laundry, 327 F. 2d 370, and Labor Board v. Missouri Transit Co., 250 F. 2d 261. In Savoy Laundry the employer operated one laundry plant where he processed both retail laundry pickups and wholesale laundering. Once the laundry was marked, all of it was processed together. After some of the employees organized, the employer discontinued most of the wholesale service, and thereafter discharged some of his employees. There was no separate wholesale department, and the discriminatory motive was obviously to discourage unionization in the entire plant. Missouri Transit presents a similar situation. A bus company operated an interstate line and an intrastate shuttle service connecting a military base with the interstate terminal. When the union attempted to organize all of the drivers, the shuttle service was sold and the shuttle drivers were discharged. Although the two services were treated as separate departments, it is clear from the facts of the case that the union was attempting to organize all of the drivers, and the discriminatory motive of the employer was to discourage unionization in the interstate service as well as the shuttle service.
Nothing we have said in this opinion would justify an employer’s interfering with employee organizational activities by threatening to close his plant, as distinguished from announcing a decision to close already reached by the board of directors or other management authority empowered to make such a decision. We recognize that this safeguard does not wholly remove the possibility that our holding may result in some deterrent effect on organizational activities independent of that arising from the closing itself. An employer may be encouraged to make a definitive decision to close on the theory that its mere announcement before a representation election will discourage the employees from voting for the union, and thus his decision may not have to be implemented. Such a possibility is not likely to occur, however, except in a marginal business; a solidly successful employer is not apt to hazard the possibility that the employees will call his bluff by voting to organize. We see no practical way of eliminating this possible consequence of our holding short of allowing the Board to order an employer who chooses so to gamble with his employees not to carry out his announced intention to close. We do not consider the matter of sufficient significance in the overall labor-management relations picture to require or justify a decision different from the one we have made.
In the -view we take of these cases we do not reach any of the challenges made "to the Board’s remedy afforded here.
See n. 10, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
OPINION OF THE COURT
[562 U.S. 197]
Justice Sotomayor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
As applicable to this case, Regulation Z—promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) pursuant to its authority under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 82 Stat. 146, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.—requires that issuers of credit cards provide cardholders with an “ [i]nitial disclosure statement” specifying, inter alia, “each periodic rate” associated with the account. 12 CFR § 226.6(a)(2) (2008). The regulation also imposes “[s]ubse-quent disclosure requirements,” including notice to cardholders “[whenever any term required to be disclosed under § 226.6 is changed.” § 226.9(c)(1). This case presents the question whether Regulation Z requires an issuer to notify a cardholder of an interest-rate increase instituted pursuant to a provision of the cardholder agreement giving the issuer discretion to increase the rate, up to a stated maximum, in the event of the cardholder’s delinquency or default. We conclude that the version of Regulation Z applicable in this case does not require such notice.
[562 U.S. 198]
I
A
Congress passed TILA to promote consumers’ “informed use of credit” by requiring “meaningful disclosure of credit terms,” 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a), and granted the Board the authority to issue regulations to achieve TILA’s purposes, § 1604(a). Pursuant to this authority, the Board promulgated Regulation Z, which requires credit card issuers to disclose certain information to consumers. Two provisions of Regulation Z are at issue in this case. The first, 12 CFR § 226.6, explains what information credit card issuers are obliged to provide to cardholders in the “ [i]nitial disclosure statement,” including “each periodic rate that may be used to compute the finance charge.” § 226.6(a)(2). The second, § 226.9, imposes upon issuers certain “[s]ubsequent disclosure requirements,” including a requirement to provide notice “[w]henever any term required to be disclosed under § 226.6 is changed.” § 226.9(c)(1). As a general matter, notice of a change in terms has to be provided 15 days in advance of the effective date of the change. Ibid. When “a periodic rate or other finance charge is increased because of the consumer’s delinquency or default,” however, notice only need be given “before the effective date of the change.” Ibid. Regulation Z also explains that no notice is required under § 226.9 when the change in terms “results from... the consumer’s default or delinquency (other than an increase in the periodic rate or other finance charge).” § 226.9(c)(2).
The official interpretation of Regulation Z (Official Staff Commentary or Commentary) promulgated by the Board explains these requirements further: Section 226.9(c)(1)’s
[562 U.S. 199]
notice-of-change requirement does not apply “if the specific change is set forth initially, such as... an increase that occurs when the consumer has been under an agreement to maintain a certain balance in a savings account in order to keep a particular rate and the account balance falls below the specified minimum.” 12 CFR pt. 226, Supp. I, Comment 9(c)—1, p. 506 (2008) (hereinafter Comment 9(c)—1). On the other hand, the Commentary explains, “notice must be given if the contract allows the creditor to increase the rate at its discretion but does not include specific terms for an increase (for example, when an increase may occur under the creditor’s contract reservation right to increase the periodic rate).” Ibid. As to the timing requirements, the Commentary states: “[A] notice of change in terms is required, but it may be mailed or delivered as late as the effective date of the change... [i]f there is an increased periodic rate or any other finance charge attributable to the consumer’s delinquency or default.” Id., Comment 9(c)(1)—3, at 507 (hereinafter Comment 9(c)(1)—3).
At least as early as 2004, the Board began considering revisions to Regulation Z. The new regulations the Board eventually issued do not apply to the present case, but the details of their promulgation provide useful background in considering the parties’ arguments with respect to the version of Regulation Z we address here. In 2004, the Board issued an advance notice of proposed rulemak-ing announcing its intent to consider revisions. 69 Fed. Reg. 70925 (2004). In so doing, the Board described how it understood the notice requirements to function at that time:
“[AJdvance notice is not required in all cases. For example, if the interest rate or other finance charge increases due to a consumer’s default or delinquency, notice is required, but need not be given in advance. 12 CFR 226.9(c)(1); comment 9(c)(1)-3. And no change-in-terms notice is required if the creditor specifies in advance the circumstances under which an increase to the
[562 U.S. 200]
finance charge or an annual fee will occur. Comment 9(c)—1. For example, some credit card account agreements permit the card issuer to increase the interest rate if the consumer pays late.... Under Regulation Z, because the circumstances are specified in advance in the account agreement, the creditor need not provide a change-in-terms notice 15 days in advance of the increase; the new rate will appear on the periodic statement for the cycle in which the increase occurs.” Id., at 70931-70932.
The Board asked for public comment on whether these “existing disclosure rules” were “adequate to enable consumers to make timely decisions about how to manage their accounts.” Id., at 70932.
Subsequently, in 2007, the Board published proposed amendments to Regulation Z and the Commentary. 72 Fed. Reg. 32948. One amendment would have required 45 days’ advance written notice when “(i) [a] rate is increased due to the consumer’s delinquency or default; or (ii) [a] rate is increased as a penalty for one or more events specified in the account agreement, such as making a late payment or obtaining an extension of credit that exceeds the credit limit.” Id., at 33058 (proposed 12 CFR § 226.9(g)). The Board explained that, under the amendments, “creditors would no longer be permitted to provide for the immediate application of penalty pricing upon the occurrence of certain events specified in the contract.” 72 Fed. Reg. 33012.
In January 2009, the Board promulgated a final rule implementing many of the proposed changes, scheduled to be effective July 1, 2010. 74 Fed. Reg. 5244. Most saliently, the Board included a new provision, § 226.9(g), which requires 45 days’ advance notice of increases in rates due to cardholder delinquency or default, or as a penalty, including penalties for “events specified in the account agreement, such as making a late payment....” 12 CFR § 226.9(g) (2010). In May 2009, Congress enacted the Credit Card Accountability
[562 U.S. 201]
Responsibility and Disclosure Act (Credit CARD Act or Act), 123 Stat. 1734. The Act amended TILA, in relevant part, to require 45 days’ advance notice of most increases in credit card annual percentage rates. 15 U.S.C. § 1637(i) (2006 ed., Supp. IV). Because the Credit CARD Act’s notice requirements with respect to interest-rate increases largely mirror the requirements in the new version of the regulation, the Board changed the effective date of those requirements to August 20, 2009, to coincide with the statutory schedule. See 74 Fed. Reg. 36077-36079. The transactions giving rise to the dispute at issue in this case, however, arose prior to enactment of the Act and the promulgation of the new regulatory provisions.
B
Respondent James A. McCoy brought this action in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against petitioner Chase Bank USA, N. A.; Chase removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. At the time of the transactions at issue, McCoy was the holder of a credit card issued by Chase. The cardholder agreement between the parties (Agreement) provides, in relevant part, that McCoy is eligible for “Preferred rates,” but that to keep such rates he has to meet certain conditions, including making “at least the required minimum payments when due on [his] Account and on all other loans or accounts with [Chase] and [his] other creditors.” Brief for Respondent 8, n. 2; see also 559 F.3d 963, 972, n. 1 (CA9 2009) (Cudahy, J., dissenting). If any of the conditions in the Agreement are not met, Chase reserves the right to “change [McCoy’s] interest rate and impose a Non-Preferred rate up to the maximum Non-Preferred rate described in the Pricing Schedule” and to apply any changes “to existing as well as new balances... effective with the billing cycle ending on the review date.” Brief for Respondent 8, n. 2.
[562 U.S. 202]
McCoy’s complaint alleges that Chase increased his interest rate due to his delinquency or default, and applied that increase retroactively. McCoy asserts that the rate increase violates Regulation Z because, pursuant to the Agreement, Chase did not notify him of the increase until after it had taken effect. The District Court dismissed McCoy’s complaint, holding that because the increase did not constitute a “change in terms” as contemplated by 12 CFR § 226.9(c), Chase was not required to notify him of the increase before implementing it. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a-47a.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in relevant part, holding that Regulation Z requires issuers to provide notice of an interest-rate increase prior to its effective date. See 559 F.3d, at 969. Concluding that the text of Regulation Z is ambiguous and that the agency commentary accompanying the 2004 request for comments and the 2007 proposed amendments favors neither party’s interpretation, the court relied primarily on the Official Staff Commentary; in particular, the court noted that Comment 9(c)—1 requires no notice of a change in terms if the “specific change” at issue is set forth in the initial agreement. See id., at 965-967. The court found, however, that because the Agreement vests Chase with discretion to impose any nonpre-ferred rate it chooses (up to the specified maximum) upon McCoy’s default, the Agreement “provides McCoy with no basis for predicting in advance what retroactive interest rate Chase will choose to charge him if he defaults.” Id., at 967. Accordingly, the court held that because the Agreement does not alert McCoy to the “specific change” that will occur if he defaults, Chase
[562 U.S. 203]
was obliged to give notice of that change prior to its effective date. Ibid. Relying primarily on the 2004 notice of proposed rulemak-ing and the 2007 proposed amendments, the dissentingjudge concluded that Regulation Z does not require notice of an interest-rate increase in the circumstances of this case. See id., at 972-979 (opinion of Cudahy, J.).
After the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided the same question in Chase’s favor. See Shaner v. Chase Bank USA, N. A., 587 F.3d 488 (2009). The First Circuit relied in part on an amicus brief submitted by the Board at the court’s request, in which the agency advanced the same interpretation of Regulation Z that it now does before this Court. Id., at 493. We granted certiorari to resolve this division in authority. 561 U.S. 1005, 130 S. Ct. 3451, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1054 (2010).
II
In order to decide this case, we must determine whether an interest-rate increase constitutes a “change in terms” under Regulation Z, when the change is made pursuant to a provision in the cardholder agreement allowing the issuer to increase the rate, up to a stated maximum, in the event of the cardholder’s delinquency or default. Accordingly, this case calls upon us to determine the meaning of a regulation promulgated by the Board under its statutory authority. The parties dispute the proper interpretation of the regulation itself, as well as whether we should accord deference to the Board’s interpretation of its regulation. As explained below, we conclude that the text of the regulation is ambiguous, and that deference is warranted to the interpretation of that text advanced by the Board in its amicus brief.
[562 U.S. 204]
A
Our analysis begins with the text of Regulation Z in effect at the time this dispute arose. First, § 226.6 (2008) requires an “ [i]nitial disclosure statement”:
“The creditor shall disclose to the consumer, in terminology consistent with that to be used on the periodic statement, each of the following items, to the extent applicable:
“(a) Finance charge. The circumstances under which a finance charge will be imposed and an explanation of how it will be determined, as follows:
“(2) A disclosure of each periodic rate that may be used to compute the finance charge, the range of balances to which it is applicable, and the corresponding annual percentage rate. When different periodic rates apply to different types of transactions, the types of transactions to which the periodic rates apply shall also be disclosed.” (Footnotes omitted.)
Second, § 226.9(c) requires certain “ [subsequent disclosure requirements”:
“Change in terms—(1) Written notice required. Whenever any term required to be disclosed under § 226.6 is changed or the required minimum periodic payment is increased, the creditor shall mail or deliver written notice of the change to each consumer who may be affected. The notice shall be mailed or delivered at least 15 days prior to the effective date of the change. The 15-day timing requirement does not apply if the change has been agreed to by the consumer, or if a periodic rate or other finance charge is increased because of the consumer’s delinquency or default; the notice shall be given, however, before the effective date of the change.
[562 U.S. 205]
“(2) Notice not required. No notice under this section is required when the change... results from... the consumer’s default or delinquency (other than an increase in the periodic rate or other finance charge).”
The question is whether the increase in McCoy’s interest rate constitutes a change to a “term required to be disclosed under § 226.6,” requiring a subsequent disclosure under § 226.9(c)(1). One of the initial terms that must be disclosed under § 226.6 is “each periodic rate that may be used to compute the finance charge... and the corresponding annual percentage rate.” § 226.6(a)(2). McCoy argues that, because an increase in the interest rate increases the “periodic rate” applicable to his account, such an increase constitutes a change in terms within the meaning of § 226.9(c)(1). As further support, McCoy points to two provisions in § 226.9(c): first, that notice of an increase in the interest rate must be provided “before the effective date of the change” when the increase is due to “the consumer’s delinquency or default,” § 226.9(c)(1); and second, that no notice is required of a change resulting “from the consumer’s default or delinquency (other than an increase in the periodic rate or other finance charge),” § 226.9(c)(2). Accordingly, because § 226.9(c) includes interest-rate increases due to delinquency or default, McCoy argues that the plain text of the regulation indicates that a change in the periodic rate due to such default is a “change in terms” requiring notice under § 226.9(c)(1).
We recognize that McCoy’s argument has some force; read in isolation, the language quoted above certainly suggests that credit card issuers must provide notice of an interest-rate increase imposed pursuant to cardholder delinquency or default. But McCoy’s analysis begs the key question: whether the increase actually changed a “term” of the Agreement that was “required to be disclosed under § 226.6.” If not, § 226.9(c)’s subsequent notice requirement with respect to a “change in terms” does not apply. Chase argues
[562 U.S. 206]
precisely this: The increase did not change a term in the Agreement, but merely implemented one that had been initially disclosed, as required. This interpretation, though not commanded by the text of the regulation, is reasonable. Section 226.6(a)(2) requires initial disclosure of “each periodic rate that may be used to compute the finance charge.” The Agreement itself discloses both the initial rate (preferred rate) and the maximum rate to be imposed in the event of default (nonpreferred rate). See Brief for Respondent 8, n. 2; Brief for Petitioner 13-14. Accordingly, it is plausible to understand the Agreement to initially disclose “each periodic rate” to be applied to the account, and Chase arguably did not “change” those rates as a result of McCoy’s default. Instead, Chase merely implemented the previously disclosed term specifying the nonpreferred rate.
This reading still leaves the question why § 226.9(c)(1) refers to interest-rate increases resulting from delinquency or default if such increases do not constitute a “change in terms.” One reasonable explanation Chase offers is that § 226.9(c)(1) refers to interest-rate increases that were not specifically outlined in the agreement’s initial terms (unlike those in the present Agreement). For example, credit card agreements routinely include a “reservation of rights” provision
[562 U.S. 207]
giving the issuer discretion to change the terms of the contract, often as a means of responding to events that raise doubts about the cardholder’s creditworthiness. An issuer may exercise this general contract-modification authority and raise the interest rate applicable to the account to address any heightened risk. See Brief for Petitioner 6. In such a case, § 226.9(c)(1) is best read to require that notice must be given prior to the effective date of the increase, because the unilateral increase instituted by the issuer actually changed a term—the interest rate—in a manner not specifically contemplated by the agreement. See Comment 9(c)—1 (providing that notice is required if the agreement “does not include specific terms for an increase (for example, when an increase may occur under the creditor’s contract reservation right to increase the periodic rate)”).
In short, Regulation Z is unclear with respect to the crucial interpretive question: whether the interest-rate increase at issue in this case constitutes a “change in terms” requiring notice. We need not decide which party’s interpretation is more persuasive, however; both are plausible, and the text alone does not permit a more definitive reading. Accordingly, we find Regulation Z to be ambiguous as to the question presented, and must therefore look to the Board’s own interpretation of the regulation for guidance in deciding this case. See Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261, 278, 129 S. Ct. 2458, 174 L. Ed. 2d 193 (2009) (stating that when an agency’s regulations construing a statute “are ambiguous... we next turn to the agencies’ subsequent interpretation of those regulations” for guidance); Ford Motor Credit Co. v.
[562 U.S. 208]
Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555, 560, 100 S. Ct. 790, 63 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1980) (stating that when the question presented “is not governed by clear expression in the... regulation... it is appropriate to defer to the Federal Reserve Board and staff in determining what resolution of that issue” is appropriate).
B
The Board has made clear in the amicus brief it has submitted to this Court that, in the Board’s view, Chase was not required to give McCoy notice of the interest-rate increase under the version of Regulation Z applicable at the time. Under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1997), we defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation, advanced in a legal brief, unless that interpretation is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Id., at 461, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the interpretation the Board presents in its brief is consistent with the regulatory text, we need look no further in deciding this case.
In its brief to this Court, the Board explains that the Ninth Circuit “erred in concluding that, at the time of the transactions at issue in this case, Regulation Z required credit card issuers to provide a change-in-terms notice before implementing a contractual default-rate provision.” See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11; see also ibid, (stating that when a term of an agreement authorized the credit provider “to increase a consumer’s interest rate if the consumer failed to make timely payments... any resulting rate increase did not represent a ‘change in terms,’ but rather the implementation of terms already set forth in the
[562 U.S. 209]
initial disclosure statement”); id., at 15-16 (stating that “[w]hen a cardholder agreement identifies a contingency that triggers a rate increase, and the maximum possible rate that the issuer may charge if that contingency occurs,” then “no change-in-terms notice is required” under Regulation Z). Under the principles set forth in Auer, we give deference to this interpretation.
In Auer, we deferred to the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of his own regulation, presented in an am-icus brief submitted by the agency at our invitation. 519 U.S., at 461-462, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79. Responding to the petitioners’ objection that the agency’s interpretation came in a legal brief, we held that this fact did not, “in the circumstances of this case, make it unworthy of deference.” Id., at 462, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79. We observed that “[t]he Secretary’s position is in no sense a ‘post hoc rationalizatio[n]’ advanced by an agency seeking to defend past agency action against attack.” Ibid. (quoting Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S. Ct. 468, 102 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1988)). We added: “There is simply no reason to suspect that the interpretation does not reflect the agency’s fair and considered judgment on the matter in question.” Auer, 519 U.S., at 462, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79.
The brief submitted by the Board in the present case, at our invitation, is no different. As in Auer, there is no reason to believe that the interpretation advanced by the Board is a “post hoc rationalization” taken as a litigation position. The Board is not a party to this case. And as is evident from our discussion of Regulation Z itself, see Part II-A, supra,
[562 U.S. 210]
the Board’s interpretation is neither “plainly erroneous” nor “inconsistent with” the indeterminate text of the regulation. In short, there is no reason to suspect that the position the Board takes in its amicus brief reflects anything other than the agency’s fair and considered judgment as to what the regulation required at the time this dispute arose.
McCoy may well be correct in asserting that it is better policy to oblige credit card issuers to give advance notice of a rate increase; after all, both Congress and the Board have recently indicated that such a requirement is warranted. See Credit CARD Act, § 101(a)(1), 123 Stat. 1735-1736; 12 CFR § 226.9(g) (2009). That Congress and the Board may currently hold such views does not mean, however, that deference is not warranted to the Board’s different understanding of what the pre-2009 version of Regulation Z required. To the contrary, the interpretation the Board advances in its amicus brief is entirely consistent with its past views. The 2004 notice of rulemaking and the 2007 proposed amendments to Regulation Z make clear that, prior to 2009, the Board’s fair and considered judgment was that “no change-in-terms notice is required if the creditor specifies in advance the circumstances under which an increase... will occur,” 69 Fed. Reg. 70931, and “immediate application of penalty pricing upon the occurrence of certain events specified in the contract” was permissible, 72 Fed. Reg. 33012.
Under Auer, therefore, it is clear that deference to the interpretation in the Board’s amicus brief is warranted. The cases McCoy cites in which we declined to apply Auer do not suggest that deference is unwarranted here. In Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 126 S. Ct. 904, 163 L. Ed. 2d 748 (2006), we declined to defer because—in sharp contrast to the present case—the regulation in question did “little more than restate the terms of the statute” pursuant to which the regulation was promulgated. Id., at 257, 126 S. Ct. 904, 163 L. Ed. 2d 748. Accordingly, no deference was warranted to an agency interpretation of what were, in fact, Congress’ words.
[562 U.S. 211]
Ibid. In contrast, at the time of the transactions in this case, TILA itself included no requirements with respect to the disclosure of a change in credit terms. In Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 120 S. Ct. 1655, 146 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2000), we declined to apply Auer deference because the regulation in question was unambiguous, and adopting the agency’s contrary interpretation would “permit the agency, under the guise of interpreting a regulation, to create de facto a new regulation.” 529 U.S., at 588, 120 S. Ct. 1655, 146 L. Ed. 2d 621. In light of Regulation Z’s ambiguity, there is no such danger here. And our statement in Christensen that “deference is warranted only when the language of the regulation is ambiguous,” ibid.., is perfectly consonant with Auer itself; if the text of a regulation is unambiguous, a conflicting agency interpretation advanced in an amicus brief will necessarily be “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation” in question. Auer, 519 U.S., at 461, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, under our precedent deference to the Board’s interpretation of its own regulation, as presented in the agency’s amicus brief, is wholly appropriate.
C
McCoy further argues that deference to a legal brief is inappropriate because the interpretation of Regulation Z in the Official Staff Commentary commands a different result. To be sure, the Official Staff Commentary promulgated by the Board as an interpretation of Regulation Z may warrant deference as a general matter. See Anderson Bros. Ford v. Valencia, 452 U.S. 205, 219, 101 S. Ct. 2266, 68 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1981) (holding that “the Board’s interpretation of its own regulation” should generally “be accepted by the courts”); Milhollin, 444 U.S., at 565, 100 S. Ct. 790, 63 L. Ed. 2d 22 (“Unless demonstrably irrational, Federal Reserve Board staff opinions construing [TILA] or Regulation [Z] should be dispositive”). We find, however, that the Commentary at issue here largely replicates the ambiguity present in the regulatory text, and therefore it offers us nothing to which we can defer with respect to the precise interpretive question before
[562 U.S. 212]
us. Cf. Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 248, 125 S. Ct. 1536, 161 L. Ed. 2d 410 (2005) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (noting that deference is not warranted when “there is no reasoned agency reading of the text to which we might defer”).
The Ninth Circuit relied primarily on Comment 9(c)( 1)—3, which states in relevant part that “a notice of change in terms is required, but it may be mailed or delivered as late as the effective date of the change... [i]f there is an increased periodic rate or any other finance charge attributable to the consumer’s delinquency or default.” This exposition of the regulation does not add any clarity to the regulatory text, which expresses the same requirement. See § 226.9(c)(1) (2008) (“[I]f a periodic rate or other finance charge is increased because of the consumer’s delinquency or default... notice shall be given... before the effective date of the change”). And like § 226.9(c), Comment 9(c) is entitled “Change in terms.” Accordingly, Chase’s plausible interpretation of § 226.9(c)(1) is equally applicable to Comment 9(c)( 1)—3: On Chase’s view, because the interest-rate increase at issue in this case did not constitute a “change in terms,” the disclosure requirements in the regulation and Commentary simply do not come into play. See supra, at 206-207, 178 L. Ed. 2d, at 725-726.
[562 U.S. 213]
Comment 9(c)—1 is also ambiguous, though the most plausible reading supports Chase’s position more than it does McCoy’s. The Comment begins: “No notice of a change in terms need be given if the specific change is set forth initially” in the agreement. We do not find that the Comment’s addition of the modifier “specific” to the word “change” enables us to determine, any more than we could in light of the text of the regulation, see supra, at 207, 178 L. Ed. 2d, at 726, whether the interest-rate increase at issue in this case was a “change in terms” requiring notice. According to Chase, as long as the agreement explains that delinquency or default might trigger an increased interest rate and states the maximum level to which the rate could be increased, the “specific change” that ensues upon default has been set forth initially and no additional notice is required before implementation. McCoy argues to the contrary: Under Comment 9(c)—1, any new rate imposed after delinquency or default must be disclosed prior to the effective date, if the particular rate (rather than the maximum rate) was not specifically mentioned in the agreement. On the whole, then, the Official Staff Commentary’s explanation of Regulation Z does not resolve the uncertainty in the regulatory text, and offers us no reason to disregard the interpretation advanced in the Board’s amicus brief.
[562 U.S. 214]
McCoy further contends that our reliance here on an agency interpretation presented outside the four corners of the Official Staff Commentary will require future litigants, as well as the Board, to expend time and resources “to comb through... correspondence, publications, and the agency’s website to determine the agency’s position.” Brief for Respondent 37-38. We are not convinced. McCoy may be correct that the Board established the Official Staff Commentary so as to centralize its opin-ionmaking process and avoid “overburdening the industry with excessive detail and multiple research sources.” 46 Fed. Reg. 50288. But his suggestion that, if we accord deference to an amicus brief, all other “unofficial” sources will be fair game is of no moment. Today we decide only that the amicus brief submitted by the Board is entitled to deference in light of “the circumstances of this case.” Auer, 519 U.S., at 462, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79.
Accordingly, we conclude that, at the time of the transactions at issue in this case, Regulation Z did not require Chase
[562 U.S. 215]
to provide McCoy with a change-in-terms notice before it implemented the Agreement term allowing it to raise his interest rate following delinquency or default.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
. As discussed more fully below, see infra, at 200-201, 178 L. Ed. 2d, at 722-723, in 2009 the Board amended Regulation Z, such that the provisions discussed in this opinion are no longer in effect. However, because the pre-2009 provisions are the ones applicable to the case before us, we will refer to them in the present tense.
. McCoy also asserted various state-law claims that are not before us. We note that McCoy’s complaint provides little detail regarding the transactions at issue in this case. The parties, however, are in agreement as to the essential facts alleged.
. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has also rejected the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit, though on a different question than the one presented in this case. See Swanson v. Bank of America, N. A., 559 F.3d 653, reh’g denied, 563 F.3d 634 (2009) (disagreeing with the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Regulation Z).
. The pricing schedule referred to in the Agreement is not contained in the case record, nor are its contents apparent from the parties’ briefs, but neither side disputes that it specified a maximum nonpreferred rate applicable to the Agreement.
. We are not persuaded by McCoy’s argument that, although Chase did not change a “contract term’’ when it raised his interest rate pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, it changed a “credit term,’’ thereby triggering § 226.9(c)’s notice requirement. The relevant text of Regulation Z does not refer to, let alone distinguish between, “contract terms’’ and “credit terms,’’ and McCoy’s repeated citations to TILA’s broad policy statement do not convince us that such a distinction is warranted. See 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a) (“It is the purpose of this subchapter to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit’’).
. The Government
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Jackson
' delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Government, by direct appeal from the District Court, invites us to reconsider and overrule the interpretation of the commodities clause of the Interstate Commerce Act promulgated in United States v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern R. Co., 298 U. S. 492. That holding, in substance, is that the prohibition against a railroad company transporting any commodity which it owns or in which it has an interest, except for its own use, does not prevent it from transporting commodities of a corporation whose stock is wholly owned by a holding company which also owns all of the stock of the railway, unless the control of the railway is so exercised as to make it the alter ego of the holding company.
The present challenge to that doctrine is predicated on the following facts: Bethlehem Steel Corporation (the holding company) owns substantially all of the stocks of South Buffalo Railway Company (South Buffalo) and of Bethlehem Steel Company (the Steel Company). At its Lackawanna plant, near Buffalo, N. Y., the Steel Company produces steel and from it fabricates various products. These commodities are transported by the South Buffalo from the plant to the rails of trunk-line carriers. In fact, South Buffalo provides the sole terminal connection between this industry and the trunk-line railroads. It operates about 6 miles of main-line track and 81 miles of spur track, 58 miles of its trackage being on leased right-of-way within the steel plant where it connects with other trackage owned by the Steel Company itself.
While about 70% of South Buffalo revenues have been derived from the Steel Company traffic, it also renders terminal switching for 27 unrelated industries, some of considerable size. It enables all of them to ship, by direct connection, over five trunk-line systems and through interchange over seven more.
South Buffalo performs no transportation service and owns no facilities outside of the State of New York, where it operates only within the Buffalo switching district. It is classified by the Interstate Commerce Commission as an “S-l” carrier, which is defined as one engaged in “performing switching services only.” It files tariffs covering switching service, both with the Interstate Commerce Commission and with the New York Public Service Commission. It does not appear to participate with any line-haul railroad in a through interstate route or to receive a division of any joint or through rate.
In 1936 this Court decided United States v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern R. Co., 298 U. S. 492, and held that the production and transportation set-up of the United States Steel Corporation, one of Bethlehem’s competitors, did not violate the commodities clause. Thereupon, Bethlehem made a study of the relations between itself, South Buffalo and the Steel Company in the light of this decision. It revised its intercorporate relationship in the next few years to comply, as it was advised, with the conditions under which this Court had found the statute inapplicable to United States Steel. It does not seem necessary to recite the complex details of intercorporate dealings before the reorganization about 1940 as this action for injunction was not begun until 1943 and the crucial question is whether there was a contemporaneous violation or a threat of violation against which the writ of the Court should be directed. Voluntarily abandoned courses of conduct are not grounds for injunction, though they may sometimes be relevant evidence of intent or similar issues.
At all times crucial to the Government’s case, Bethlehem controlled the stock of both the shipper and the carrier corporations. It unquestionably had power to favor its shipping subsidiary at the expense of its carrying subsidiary, or vice versa. The first question is whether we will now hold that mere possession of the power, regardless of whether it is exercised or remains dormant, makes out a violation of the statute. This Court said in the Elgin case that it does not.
It is the Government’s contention that the Elgin decision misconstrued the Act, misunderstood its legislative history and misapplied the Court’s own prior decisions. It is not necessary in the view we take of the case to decide to what extent, if any, these contentions are correct. It is enough to say that if the Elgin case were before us as a case of first impression, its doctrine might not now be approved. But we do not write on a clean slate. What the Court has written before is but one of a series of events, which convinces us that its overruling or modification should be left to Congress. As the Court held on our last decision day, when the questions are of statutory construction, not of constitutional import, Congress can rectify our mistake, if such it was, or change its policy at any time, and in these circumstances reversal is not readily to be made. Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U. S. 611, decided April 19, 1948. Moreover, in this case, unlike the cited one, Congress has considered the alleged mistake and decided not to change it.
The Interstate Commerce Commission, after repeatedly calling the attention of Congress to the Elgin case during its pendency, in 1936 reported its defeat in the litigation. Referring to commodities clause cases it said, “We recommend that Congress, in the light of facts already made available in our reports and in reports of investigations conducted by congressional committees, shall determine the appropriate limit of our jurisdiction in such cases and whether further legislation to extend that jurisdiction is necessary.” Congress took no action.
But its inaction has not been from inadvertence or failure to appreciate the effect of the Court’s interpretation. A bill was introduced in the Senate containing language relating to affiliates and subsidiaries calculated in effect to set aside the Elgin decision. Section 12 of the bill as introduced read as follows:
“It shall be unlawful for any carrier by railroad and, on and after January 1, 1941, it shall be unlawful for any carrier, other than a carrier by air, to transport, in commerce subject to this Act, any article or commodity, other than timber and the manufactured products thereof, manufactured, mined, or produced by or under the authority of such carrier or any subsidiary, affiliate, or controlling person of such carrier, or any such article or commodity in which such carrier, subsidiary, affiliate, or controlling person has any interest, direct or indirect, legal or equitable, except such articles or commodities as may be necessary or intended for use in the conduct of the carrier business of such carrier.”
The italicized portions indicate the proposed additions which would have extended the clause to cover (1) carriers other than railroads, and (2) subsidiaries, affiliates and controlling persons.
At the beginning of hearings thereon by the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce its chairman said that, with respect to the commodities clause, the purpose of the Bill was “To make effective the intent of Congress in prohibiting railroads, or other carriers after January 1, 1941, from transporting products not utilized in the conduct of their transportation business but in which they have an interest, direct or indirect.” A week later, in the course of the hearings when evidence began to be offered showing the effect the proposed clause might have on various industries, the chairman made this statement:
“Let me say this to you with reference to the commodities clause, so that there will not be a lot of time wasted on it. I am speaking for myself and not for the committee. I think the commodities clause will have to be changed; and if we are going to make such drastic changes in the commodity clause as this bill would suggest, I think it ought not to be incorporated in this particular piece of legislation, but should come up as a separate piece of legislation so that we can devote considerable time and thought to that particular subject. This would so change the economic structure of a lot of industries that I think it is something that would have to have particular consideration in a separate piece of legislation.”
In a further discussion the Chairman added: “I might say, also, that if the commodities clause should stay in as it is at the present time it would disrupt a great many industries, and I would seriously question as to whether or not I wanted to attempt anything of that kind at this time, particularly in this specific piece of legislation.”
When the bill was reported to the Senate, the proposed change had been eliminated and the original language of the Act retained. The Committee, in reporting the bill, said, “The rewritten commodities clause was considered far too drastic and the subcommittee early decided against any change therein.”
The Government argues that the characterization of the rejected revised commodities clause as “too drastic” was based on the proposed extension of its terms to all common carriers and not on the proposal to include a “subsidiary, affiliate, or controlling person” of a carrier. We believe, however, that a fair reading of the legislative history leads to the conclusion that the “drastic readjustment” feared by the Committee was that expected from the application sought here by the Government, at least as much as that feared from extension of the clause to cover carriers other than railroads. If the Committee objected only to extending the clause to other carriers, it would have been a simple matter to delete the short series of words which would have accomplished that change, and still leave undisturbed the more complicated provision concerning subsidiaries and affiliates, since the text of each provision is wholly disconnected from the other.
In view of the foregoing, it seems clear that when, in discussing whether or not this revised clause would have “prevented the steel company, or somebody in that position, from operating their own railroad,” the Committee Chairman said “I did not intend such a result,” he expressed the view which prevailed in the Committee and in the Congress.
The Government now asks us to apply the unchanged language as if Congress had adopted the proposal which it rejected as “far too drastic.” The considerations which led to the suggestion that the problem presented by the Government’s position would require separate legislation and particular consideration seems to us to require that the problem be left to legislation rather than to the judicial process. And the pertinent portions of the legislative history which are set out at length in the margin indicate clearly, we think, that this Senate Committee responsible for S. 2009, which became the Transportation Act of 1940, deliberately refused to recommend and the Congress refused to legislate into the law the change we are now asked to make by judicial decision.
We could, of course, refuse to follow the Elgin precedent, and apply a different and more drastic rule to Bethlehem than applies to its competitor. Congress, however, in making a rule for the future, can make one of impartial application to all like situations. Limitations that are traditional upon our powers do seem not to permit us to do so.
Whatever may be said of the Elgin decision, when the Committee of Congress faced the readjustments its overruling would force, and with special reference to the steel industry, it concluded the decision should be allowed, at least for the present, to stand. We cannot ignore the considerations they found to be so persuasive, and which are equally involved in the request that we do what Congress considered and abandoned.
The relief asked of us as a court of equity is so drastic in nature as to afford an example of an “upset” in an industry owning a short line of railroad of the type referred to by the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Committee of the Senate, who said “it is questionable whether we would want to make such a radical departure from the present system.” The demand is for an injunction perpetually to enjoin and restrain South Buffalo from transporting commodities in which the Steel Company or the holding company owns an interest. There is no other rail route by which inbound raw materials or outbound products of this huge industry can reach trunk-line railroads. And the traffic that we are asked thus to prohibit yields 70% of the railroad’s revenues, and if taken away would doubtless substantially increase the cost of service to the unaffiliated industries that would remain to be served. Of course, what is literally asked is probably not what is ultimately desired. To forbid the physical operation as now conducted would be needlessly damaging to both shipper and carrier. What is aimed at, we suppose, is to force such a change of financial structure as will divorce shipper interest from all transportation interest. It seems clear, however, in the light of the legislative history, that this is the kind of operation that Congress did not want to prohibit because the prohibition was thought too drastic. If an independent ownership could be found for South Buffalo, it might be desirable. But independent ownership of a dependent facility wedged in between shippers, one of whom controls 70% of its revenues, and the trunk-line railroads, is not shown to be likely. Under the Government’s theory, no other shipper or group of shippers any more than Bethlehem could own the road. Nor is it clear that any evils exist or are threatened which would be eliminated if this operation were transferred to control of one of the trunk-line railroads or to a pool of them. This road, despite its shipper ownership, is bound by both federal and state law to serve all shippers without discriminations or unreasonable charges. The Commission has power to exact compliance with these duties. The argument, however, is that a situation exists which presents opportunity and temptation for abuse and for concealed evasions of duty. But to forestall possible abuses we are asked to apply a remedy which there is indication failed of congressional approval because its application to many situations would be too drastic and would do greater injury to shipper and transportation interests than could result from its withholding. In the light of the history of this clause since the Elgin decision and the equitable considerations involved in this case, we decline to overrule the interpretation Congress has not seen fit to set aside.
The argument is made that even accepting the Elgin decision the evidence here establishes that Bethlehem has so exercised its power over South Buffalo as to reduce the railroad to a mere department of Bethlehem. The trial court found against the Government and considered that on this subject this case contains much less proof to sustain an injunction than did the Elgin case. Without reciting the voluminous evidence in detail, we agree. Bethlehem, as a stockholder, of course controlled South Buffalo. It did not, however, disregard in either the legal or economic sense, the separate entity of its subsidiary or treat it as its own alter ego. On the contrary, it rather ostentatiously maintained the formalities of separate existence, choosing as directors several Buffalo citizens who were not interested in Bethlehem. We are not naive enough to believe that Bethlehem chose men for the posts whose interests or records left any fair probability that they would act adversely to Bethlehem in representing its interest as chief stockholder of the railroad. Nor has any instance been cited in which the best interests of the railroad would require them to do so. So long as Congress considers it inadvisable to extend the prohibition of the commodities clause to subsidiaries and affiliates, we see nothing that Bethlehem has done to incur liability for its violation. Of course, it could not expect the Commission or the courts to respect a corporate entity which Bethlehem itself disregarded; but that it has not done. The subsidiary would not have to establish its separate identity by a course of hostility to its sole stockholder or its chief customer. Its identity has been preserved in form and in substance — the substance of separate corporate existence being itself largely a matter of form. Under the Elgin case and until Congress shall otherwise decide, this is sufficient.
Judgment affirmed.
49 U.S.C. § 45; 28 U.S. C. § 345.
49 U. S.C.§ 1 (8).
The complete text of the commodities clause provides: “From and after May first, nineteen hundred and eight, it shall be unlawful for any railroad company to transport from any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, to any other State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or to any foreign country, any article or commodity, other than timber and the manufactured products thereof, manufactured, mined, or produced by it, or under its authority, or which it may own in whole or in part, or in which it may have any interest, direct or indirect, except such articles or commodities as may be necessary and intended for its use in the conduct of its business as a common carrier.”
50th Annual Report I. C. C. 30 (1936).
S. 2009, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., March 30 (legislative day March 28) 1939.
Hearings before Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 2009, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (April 3, 1939).
Id., at 427 (April 10,1939).
Ibid.
Senate Report No. 433, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 15 (May 16, legislative day May 8,1939).
The extent of the consideration which the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee gave to the proposed revision of the commodities clause is indicated by the following excerpts from Hearings on S. 2009, held from April 3 to April 14, 1939:
In opening the hearing, Senator Wheeler, Chairman, stated that, with respect to the commodities clause, the purpose of the bill was “to make effective the intent of Congress in prohibiting railroads, or other carriers after January 1, 1941, from transporting products not utilized in the conduct of their transportation business but in which they have an interest, direct or indirect.”
During the testimony of the General Counsel, Association of American Railroads, the following colloquies took place:
“Senator Reed. Judge, in section 12 there is some new language. I have marked it ‘O. K.’ here. That is to cover the decisions of the Supreme Court in the E. J. & E. case?
Mr. Fletcher. I will get to that in just a moment. There is new language in there. . . .
Mr. Fletcher. I come to section 12, the commodities clause, about which I would like to say a word.
It was the thought of those who drew the bill, H. R. 4862, to undertake to put into statutory form the recommendation of the Committee of Six that they ought to extend the commodities clause, which now applies only to railroads, to water carriers and motor carriers as well.
Now, I think the water carrier people will object to that ....
... I think some of the steel companies have water operations of that kind. I mention that as a change in the law suggested by the draftsmen who prepared the bill, reflecting the views of the Committee of Six.
The Chairman. Judge, somebody called me on the phone the other day . . . and asked me as to whether or not in my opinion this prevented the steel company, or somebody in that position, from operating their own railroad, where they have a small railroad that they are operating. I did not intend such a result. [Emphasis supplied.]
Mr. Fletcher. This bill has no relation to that. One of my associates suggests, Senator, that possibly this language, which I was just about to mention and which was called to my attention a few minutes ago by Senator Reed, might possibly have that effect.
Senator Reed. I would disagree with the chairman, if I may be so bold. I think the commodities clause would have that effect in the bill that we are currently discussing. [Emphasis supplied.]
Mr. Fletcher. When I said so promptly and perhaps rashly that I did not think it did, I did not have in mind this particular amendment, which I will now mention.
Senator Reed. I am perfectly willing that it should have that effect.
The Chairman. Well, I doubt that it should. For instance, a lumber company may own some railroad.
Senator Reed. You exempt that?
Mr. Fletcher. You exempt the lumber company?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Fletcher. It might not be altogether lumber.
The Chairman. I was speaking, for instance, of some steel company or some other industrial company which might own a short railroad. [Emphasis supplied.]
Senator Reed. The United States Steel Co. owns the Union Railroad Co.
The Chairman. I do not know what the Union Railroad Co. is.
Senator Reed. It is a short road.
Mr. Fletcher. I think the E. J. & E. started all this shouting.
Senator Reed. In section 12, on page 44, beginning at line 22, it reads: 'or produced by or under the authority of such carrier or any subsidiary, affiliate’ — and this is the language — 'or controlling person of such carrier.’
Mr. Fletcher. That is new, you see.
Senator Reed. That is new. I am in accord with the chairman on that language.
Mr. Fletcher. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, but I do think it is a trifle unfortunate to try to accomplish so drastic a thing in a bill of this kind, the thought of which was to reproduce existing law.
The Chairman. 1 am very doubtful about it. I am afraid that it will cause such a drastic readjustment. [Emphasis supplied.]
Mr. Fletcher. The E. J. & E. Co. [case]-
The Chairman (interposing). I am not familiar with the E. J. & E. case.
Mr. Fletcher (continuing). — brought about this suggestion here. There the United States Steel Corporation does not own the E. J. & E. directly, but through the medium of the Illinois Steel Corporation, a subsidiary of the United States Steel Co. — and I may get that a little confused-
Senator Reed (interposing). You have.
Mr. Fletcher. My recollection is that the United States Steel Corporation owns a company — you might call it a holding company— which holding company owns both the E. J. & E. and the steel corporation.
It was contended by the Government that when the E. J. & E. transported freight for the Illinois Steel Corporation they were violating the commodities clause, because either directly or indirectly the railroad owned this traffic that was being transported, but the Supreme Court of the United States held not, but where you had one company or person who owned both the railroad and the commercial enterprises that produced the tonnage, the transportation by the railroad of that tonnage was not equivalent to the transportation by the railroad of tonnage which it owned.
Senator Reed. Judge, you remember that Justice Stone, Justice Brandéis, and Justice Cardozo dissented from that majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the E. J. & E. case.
Mr. Fletcher. That is right.
Senator Reed. And Justice Stone wrote the dissenting opinion. Mr. Fletcher. Yes.
Senator Reed. I am inclined to think that the Supreme [sic], as presently constituted, would hold with what was the minority view.
Mr. Fletcher. I would not express any opinion on that.
Senator Reed. I speak frankly, being no lawyer myself.
Mr. Fletcher. Whether that is wise or unwise, I doubt if it ought to be done in this legislation and in this bill.
Senator Reed. I thought Justice Stone wrote a more logical opinion that Justice Butler did. I think it was Justice Butler who wrote the majority opinion in that E. J. <& E. case.
Mr. Fletcher. I think it was.” [Justice McReynolds wrote the opinion of the Court.]
Later, during the testimony of counsel for Mississippi River System Carriers’ Association, the following statements concerning the commodities clause were made:
“Senator Reed. . . . and I think we might give further consideration to that commodities clause.
Mr. Bayless. It is too drastic, also.
Senator Reed. It was probably tightened up when, which I say as a layman and therefore not in fear of being criticized, the Supreme Court of the United States made a strange decision in the E. J. & E. case. This was tightened to meet that E. J. & E. decision, because I think that was a strange construction of the law on the part of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Testimony by counsel for coal operators led to the following:
“Senator White. What changes have been made in the commodities clause?
Mr. Norman. Very substantial ones.
The Chairman. Very substantial.
Mr. Norman. That is on page 44.
The Chairman. What we tried to do, to be frank with you, was to try to adapt it to meet the decision of the Supreme Court in the E. J. & E. case.
Senator Reed. I think, of course, what Mr. Norman has in mind is that it goes further than that, in that for the first time we are applying the commodities clause to water carriers.
Senator White. I understood that, but in what other respects?
Senator Reed. I think that is the only respect.
Mr. Norman. Well, no; as the Senator says, it probably would get around the Supreme Court decision in the E. J. & E. case, because it puts in there the words ‘subsidiar}', affiliate, or controlling person of such carrier.’
The Chairman. That is right.”
A discussion of the effect on coal-industry contract carriers followed. Then:
“Mr. Norman. So that commodities clause, again, is a big one and certainly ought to be studied before there are any changes made in it. It is loaded with dynamite so far as business is concerned.
Senator Reed. You may have one kind in mind, but there are many of them.
The Chairman. There are difficulties on that question, in my mind. Suppose we reenacted the law as it is. The question is whether the courts might say, in view of the Supreme Court’s decision, ‘In reenacting the law you approved the decision of the Supreme Court.’ ”
On April 10, 1939, the Chairman, in addition to the statements quoted in the body of this opinion also said:
“. . . I want to say that I think it is foolish for a lot of people to come in here and waste our time and their own time in talking about that [the commodities clause], and for that reason I wanted to make it clear by that statement. . . .
“As I said before, this is such a broad subject and it would undoubtedly cause a tremendous upset in many lines of business, that it is questionable whether we would want to make such a radical departure from the present system.”
As pointed out in the text, when the Bill was reported to the Senate, the proposed changes in the commodities clause had been abandoned. The Committee report stated:
“. . . The commodities clause, forbidding a carrier by railroad to transport any article or commodity in which it has an interest direct or indirect, with certain exceptions not very material [timber and timber products], has been retained. . . .”
“Section 12. Commodities Clause. This provision retains the ‘commodities clause’ (sec. 1 (8) of Interstate Commerce Act), now applicable only to railroads, in its present form. The rewritten commodities clause was considered far too drastic and the subcommittee early decided against any change therein.”
See note 10.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition, for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., ante, p. 321. Both § 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 158, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 187, and § 4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15, give a cause of action for injury to business or property. Whether suits under the two statutes are distinguishable for purposes of determining the time at which a cause of action accrues warrants further exploration by the Court of Appeals. Further attention should also be given to the question of why a § 303 cause of action has sufficiently accrued to bring suit as soon as the plaintiff suffers damage but has not sufficiently accrued to start the running of the statute of limitations on the damages already suffered and for which suit may be but is not brought. •
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Harlan would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for argument on the merits.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
An insolvent prime contractor failed to pay a subcontractor for work the latter completed on a construction project for the Department of the Army. The Department of the Army having required no Miller Act bond from the prime contractor, the subcontractor sought to collect directly from the Army by asserting an equitable lien on certain funds held by the Army. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that § 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 702, waived the Government’s immunity for the subcontractor’s claim. We hold that §702 did not nullify the long settled rule that sovereign immunity bars creditors from enforcing liens on Government property.
Participating in a business development program for socially and economically disadvantaged firms run by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Department of the Army contracted with Verdan Technology, Inc., in September 1993, to install a telephone switching system at an Army depot in Umatilla, Oregon. Verdan, in turn, employed respondent Blue Fox, Inc., as a subcontractor on the project to construct a concrete block building to house the telephone system and to install certain safety and support systems.
Under the Miller Act, 40 U. S. C. §§270a-270d, a contractor that performs “construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the United States” generally must post two types of bonds. §270a(a). First, the contractor must post a “performance bond... for the protection of the United States” against defaults by the contractor. §270a(a)(l). Second, the contractor must post a “payment bond ... for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material.” §270a(a)(2). The Miller Act gives the subcontractors and other suppliers “the right to sue on such payment bond for the amount, or the balance thereof, unpaid at the time of institution of such suit and to prosecute said action to final execution and judgment for the sum or sums justly due him.” §270b(a). Although the Army’s original solicitation in this case required the contractor to furnish payment and performance bonds if the contract price exceeded $25,000, the Army later amended the solicitation, treated the contract as a “services contract,” and deleted the bond requirements. Verdan therefore did not post any Miller Act bonds.
Blue Fox performed its obligations, but Verdan failed to pay it the $46,586.14 that remained due on the subcontract. After receiving notices from Blue Fox that it had not been fully paid, the Army nonetheless disbursed a total of $86,132.33 to Verdan as payment for all work that Verdan had completed. In January 1995, the Army terminated its contract with Verdan for various defaults and another contractor completed the Umatilla project. Blue Fox obtained a default judgment in tribal court against Verdan. Seeing that it could not collect from Verdan or its officers, it sued the Army for the balance due on its contract with Verdan in Federal District Court.
Predicating jurisdiction on 28 U. S. C. § 1331 and the APA, Blue Fox sought an “equitable lien” on any funds from the Verdan contract not paid to Verdan, or any funds available or appropriated for completion of the Umatilla project, and an order directing payment of those funds to it. Blue Fox also sought an injunction preventing the Army from paying any more money on the Verdan contract or on the follow-on contract until Blue Fox was paid. By the time of the suit, however, the Army had paid all amounts due on the Verdan contract, Blue Fox failed to obtain any preliminary relief, and the Army subsequently paid the replacement contractor the funds remaining on the Verdan contract plus additional funds.
On eross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court held that the waiver of sovereign immunity provided by the APA did not apply to respondent’s claim against the Army. The District Court thus concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over respondent’s claim and accordingly granted the Army’s motion for summary judgment. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in relevant part. See Blue Fox Inc. v. Small Business Admin., 121 F. 3d 1357 (1997). The majority held that under this Court’s decision in Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879 (1988), the APA waives immunity for equitable actions. Based in part on its analysis of several of our cases examining a surety’s right of subrogation, the majority held that the APA had waived the Army’s immunity from Blue Fox’s suit to recover the amount withheld by the Army. The majority concluded that the lien attached to funds retained by the Army but owed to Verdan at the time the Army received Blue Fox’s notice that Verdan had failed to pay. The majority stated that “[t)he Army cannot escape Blue Fox’s equitable lien by wrongly paying out funds to the prime contractor when it had notice of Blue Fox’s unpaid claims.” 121 F. 3d, at 1363.
The dissenting judge stated that “no matter how you slice Blue Fox’s claim, it seeks funds from the treasury to compensate for the Army’s failure to require Verdan to post a bond.” Id., at 1364 (opinion of Rymer, J.). In her view, Congress chose to protect subcontractors like Blue Fox through the bond requirements of the Miller Act, not by waiving immunity in the APA to permit subcontractors to sue the United States directly for amounts owed to them by the prime contractor. Because this rule has been “conventional wisdom for at least fifty years,” she did not agree that Congress had waived the Army’s sovereign immunity from Blue Fox’s suit. Ibid. The Government petitioned for review, and we granted certiorari to decide whether the APA has waived the Government’s immunity from suits to enforce an equitable lien. 524 U. S. 951 (1998).
"Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U. S. 471, 475 (1994). Congress, of course, has waived its immunity for a wide range of suits, including those that seek traditional money damages. Examples are the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §2671 et seq., and the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491. They are not involved here. Respondent sued the Army under § 10(a) of the APA, which provides in relevant part:
“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party.” 5 U. S. C. § 702 (emphasis added).
Respondent asks us to hold, as did the court below, that this provision, which waives the Government’s immunity from actions seeking relief “other than money damages,” allows subcontractors to place liens on funds held by the United States Government for work completed on a prime contract. We have frequently held, however, that a waiver of sovereign immunity is to be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign. See, e. g., Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S. 187, 192 (1996) (citing cases); Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U. S. 310, 318 (1986). Such a waiver must also be “unequivocally expressed” in the statutory text. See Lane, supra, at 192. Respondent’s claim must therefore meet this high standard.
Respondent argues, and the court below held, that our analysis of § 702 in Bowen compels the allowance of respondent’s lien. We disagree. In Bowen, we examined the text and legislative history of §702 to determine whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts could sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enforce a provision of the Medicaid Act that required the payment of certain amounts to the State for Medicaid services. We held that the State’s complaint in Bowen was not barred by the APA’s prohibition on suits for money damages. The Court of Appeals below read our decision in Bowen as interpreting §702’s reference to “other than money damages” as waiving immunity from all actions that are equitable in nature. See 121 F. 3d, at 1361 (“Since the APA waives immunity for equitable actions, the district court had jurisdiction under the APA”).
Bowen’s analysis of §702, however, did not turn on distinctions between “equitable” actions and other actions, nor could such a distinction have driven the Court’s analysis in light of §702’s language. As Bowen recognized, the crucial question under §702 is not whether a particular claim for relief is “equitable” (a term found nowhere in §702), but rather what Congress meant by “other than money damages” (the precise terms of § 702). Bowen held that Congress employed this language to distinguish between specific relief and compensatory, or substitute, relief. The Court stated:
“We begin with the ordinary meaning of the words Congress employed. The term “money damages,” 5 U. S. C. §702, we think, normally refers to a sum of money used as compensatory relief. Damages are given to the plaintiff to substitute for a suffered loss, whereas specific remedies “are not substitute remedies at all, but attempt to give the plaintiff the very thing to which he was entitled.” ’ ” 487 U. S., at 895 (quoting Maryland Dept. of Human Resources v. Department of Health and Human Services, 763 F. 2d 1441, 1446 (CADC 1985) (citation omitted)).
Bowen also concluded from its analysis of relevant legislative history that “the drafters had in mind the time-honored distinction between damages and specific relief.” 487 U. S., at 897. Bowen’s interpretation of § 702 thus hinged on the distinction between specific relief and substitute relief, not between equitable and nonequitable categories of remedies.
We accordingly applied this interpretation of § 702 to the State’s suit to overturn a decision by the Secretary disallowing reimbursement under the Medicaid Act. We held that the State’s suit was not one “seeking money in compensation for the damage sustained by the failure of the Federal Government to pay as mandated; rather, it [was] a suit seeking to enforce the statutory mandate itself, which happens to be one for the payment of money.” Id., at 900. The Court therefore concluded that the substance of the State’s suit was one for specific relief, not money damages, and hence the suit fell within §702’s waiver of immunity.
It is clear from Bowen that the equitable nature of the lien sought by respondent here does not mean that its ultimate claim was not one for “money damages” within the meaning of §702. Liens, whether equitable or legal, are merely a means to the end of satisfying a claim for the recovery of money. Indeed, equitable liens by their nature constitute substitute or compensatory relief rather than specific relief. An equitable lien does not “give the plaintiff the very thing to which he was entitled,” id., at 895 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); instead, it merely grants a plaintiff “a security interest in the property, which [the plaintiff] can then use to satisfy a money claim,” usually a claim for unjust enrichment, 1 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies §4.3(3), p. 601 (2d ed. 1993); see also Laycock, The Scope and Significance of Restitution, 67 Texas L. Rev. 1277,1290 (1989) (“The equitable lien is a hybrid, granting a money judgment and securing its collection with a lien on the specific thing”). Commentators have warned not to view equitable liens as anything more than substitute relief:
“[T]he form of the remedy requires that [a] lien or charge should be established, and then enforced, and the amount due obtained by a sale total or partial of the fund, or by a sequestration of its rents, profits, and proceeds. These preliminary steps may, on a casual view, be misleading as to the nature of the remedy, and may cause it to appear to be something more than compensatory; but a closer view shows that all these steps are merely auxiliary, and that the real remedy, the. final object of the proceeding, is the pecuniary recovery.” 1 J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence §112, p. 148 (5th ed. 1941).
See also Dobbs, supra, at 601 (equitable lien foreclosure “results in only a monetary payment to the plaintiff and obviously does not carry with it the advantages of recovering specific property”).
We accordingly hold that the sort of equitable lien sought by respondent here constitutes a claim for “money damages”; its goal is to seize or attach money in the hands of the Government as compensation for the loss resulting from the default of the prime contractor. As a form of substitute and not specific relief, respondent’s action to enforce an equitable lien falls outside of § 702’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
Our holding today is in accord with our precedent establishing that sovereign immunity bars creditors from attaching or garnishing funds in the Treasury, see Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. 20 (1845), or enforcing liens against property owned by the United States, see United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., 218 U. S. 452, 471 (1910); United States ex rel. Hill v. American Surety Co. of N. Y., 200 U. S. 197, 203 (1906) (“As against the United States, no lien can be provided upon its public buildings or grounds”). Respondent points to nothing in the text or history of §702 that suggests that Congress intended to overrule this precedent, let alone anything that “'unequivocally expresses]’” such an intent. Lane, 518 U. S., at 192.
Instead, recognizing that sovereign immunity left subcontractors and suppliers without a remedy against the Government when the general contractor became insolvent, Congress enacted the Miller Act (and its predecessor the Heard Act) to protect these workers. See United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U. S. 234, 241 (1947); Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., supra, at 471. But the Miller Act by its terms only gives subcontractors the right to sue on the surety bond posted by the prime contractor, not the right to recover their losses directly from the Government.
Respondent contends that in several cases examining a surety’s right of equitable subrogation, this Court suggested that subcontractors and suppliers can seek compensation directly against the Government. See, e. g., Prairie State Bank v. United States, 164 U. S. 227 (1896); Henningsen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of Baltimore, 208 U. S. 404, 410 (1908); Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U. S. 132, 141 (1962) (stating that “the laborers and material-men had a right to be paid out of the fund [retained by the Government]” and hence a surety was subrogated to this right); but see Munsey Trust Co., supra, at 241 (“[N]othing is more clear than that laborers and materialmen do not have enforceable rights against the United States for their compensation”). None of the cases relied upon by respondent involved a question of sovereign immunity, and, in fact, none involved a subcontractor directly asserting a claim against the Government Instead, these eases dealt with disputes between private parties over priority to funds which had been transferred out of the Treasury and as to which the Government had disclaimed any ownership. They do not in any way disturb the established rule that, unless waived by Congress, sovereign immunity bars subcontractors and other creditors from enforcing liens on Government property or funds to recoup their losses.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Although Blue Fox also named the SBA as a defendant, the District Court granted summary judgment in the SBA’s favor, the Court of Apaffirmed that decision, and Blue Fox has not challenged that ruling.
The Army from the undisbursed balance on the Verdan contract (approximately $85,000) which had been designated for certain work that Verdan failed to complete. No funds due to Verdan for work actually performed had been held back or retained by the Army. The Army paid the replacement contractor in July 1995, two months after Blue Fox filed its action against the Army in the District Court.
The Federal Tort Claims Act provides that, subject to certain exceptions, “[t]he United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” 28 U. S. C. §2674. The Tucker Act grants the Court of Claims jurisdiction “to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act also gives federal district courts concurrent jurisdiction over claims founded upon the same substantive grounds for relief but not exceeding $10,000 in damages. See § 1346(a)(2).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was charged with robbery under the District of Columbia Code. D. C. Code Ann. § 22-2901. At his trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, petitioner moved to suppress an automobile registration card belonging to the robbery victim, which the Government sought to introduce in evidence. The trial court, after a hearing, ruled that the card was admissible. Petitioner was convicted of the crime charged and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two to seven years. On appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that the card had been obtained by means of an unlawful search. The Government’s petition for rehearing en banc was, however, granted, and the full Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner’s conviction, with two judges dissenting. We granted certiorari to consider the problem presented under the Fourth Amendment. 386 U. S. 1003 (1967). We affirm.
Petitioner’s automobile had been seen leaving the site of the robbery. The car was traced and petitioner was arrested as he was entering it, near his home. After a cursory search of the car, the arresting officer took petitioner to a police station. The police decided to impound the car as evidence, and a crane was called to tow it to the precinct. It reached the precinct about an hour and a quarter after petitioner. At this moment, the windows of the car were open and the door unlocked. It had begun to rain.
A regulation of the Metropolitan Police Department requires the officer who takes an impounded vehicle in charge to search the vehicle thoroughly, to remove all valuables from it, and to attach to the vehicle a property tag listing certain information about the circumstances of the impounding. Pursuant to this regulation, and without a warrant, the arresting officer proceeded to the lot to which petitioner’s car had been towed, in order to search the vehicle, to place a property tag on it, to roll up the windows, and to lock the doors. The officer entered on the driver’s side, searched the car, and tied a property tag on the steering wheel. Stepping out of the car, he rolled up an open window on one of the back doors. Proceeding to the front door on the passenger side, the officer opened the door in order to secure the window and door. He then saw the registration card, which lay face up on the metal stripping over which the door closes. The officer returned to the precinct, brought petitioner to the car, and confronted petitioner with the registration card. Petitioner disclaimed all knowledge of the card. The officer then seized the card and brought it into the precinct. Returning to the car, he searched the trunk, rolled up the windows, and locked the doors.
The sole question for our consideration is whether the officer discovered the registration card by means of an illegal search. We hold that he did not. The admissibility of evidence found as a result of a search under the police regulation is not presented by this case. The precise and detailed findings of the District Court, accepted by the Court of Appeals, were to the effect that the discovery of the card was not the result of a search of the car, but of a measure taken to protect the car while it was in police custody. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment requires the police to obtain a warrant in these narrow circumstances.
Once the door had lawfully been opened, the registration card, with the name of the robbery victim on it, was plainly visible. It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence. Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 42-43 (1963); United States v. Lee, 274 U. S. 559 (1927); Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57 (1924).
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was convicted for having unlawfully refused to answer a question pertinent to a matter under inquiry before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities at a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia, on July 30, 1958. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which held that our decision in Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, was “controlling.” 272 F. 2d 783. We granted certiorari, 362 U. S. 926, to consider the petitioner’s claim that the Court of Appeals had misconceived the meaning of the Baren-blatt decision. For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the Court of Appeals was correct, and that its judgment must be affirmed.
I.
The following circumstances were established by uncon-troverted evidence at the petitioner’s trial:
The Committee on Un-American Activities is a standing committee of the House of Representatives, elected at the commencement of each Congress. The Committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to investigate “(i) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.”
In the spring of 1958 the Committee passed a resolution providing for a subcommittee hearing to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, "relating to the following subjects and having the legislative purposes indicated:
“1. The extent, character and objects of Communist colonization and infiltration in the textile and other basic industries located in the South, and Communist Party propaganda activities in the South, the legislative purpose being:
“(a) To obtain additional information for use by the Committee in its consideration of Section 16 of H. R. 9352, relating to the proposed amendment of Section 4 of the Communist Control Act of 1954, prescribing a penalty for knowingly and wilfully becoming or remaining a member of the Communist Party with knowledge of the purposes or objectives thereof; and
“(b) To obtain additional information, adding to the Committee’s overall knowledge on the subject so that Congress may be kept informed and thus prepared to enact remedial legislation in the National Defense, and for internal security, when and if the exigencies of the situation require it.
“2. Entry and dissemination within the United States of foreign Communist Party propaganda, the legislative purpose being to determine the necessity for, and advisability of, amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act designed more effectively to counteract the Communist schemes and devices now used in avoiding the prohibitions of the Act.
“3. Any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee which it, or any subcommittee thereof, appointed to-conduct this hearing, may designate.”
The subcommittee which was appointed pursuant to this resolution convened in Atlanta on July 29, 1958. At the opening of the proceedings on that day, the Chairman of the Committee orally summarized the purposes of the hearings. The petitioner was present and heard the Chairman’s statement.
The first witness to appear was Amando Penha, who testified that he had been a member of the Communist Party from 1950 to 1958, having joined the Party at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He stated that he had served as a member of the National Textile Commission of the Party, which, he said, was set up to control and supervise the infiltration and colonization of the textile industry, particularly in the South. He described the “colonizer” system, which, he said, involves sending hard-core Party members into plants in jobs where they have close contact with rank-and-file workers. Penha described in some detail his trips throughout the South in compliance with the instructions of the National Textile Commission, and identified a number of individuals as “colonizers.” Another witness, a Deputy Collector of Customs, described the influx of Communist propaganda sent from abroad into the United States and particularly into the South. Several other witnesses were then interrogated, some as to their activities as alleged Communist colonizers, others as to their connection with certain allegedly Communist-controlled publications. A number of these witnesses declined to answer most of the questions put to them.
On the following day the first witness before the subcommittee was Carl Braden. Although interrogated at length he declined to answer questions relating to alleged Communist activity. The next witness was the petitioner. After being sworn and stating his name he declined to give his residence address, stating that, “As a matter of conscience and personal responsibility, I refuse to answer any questions of this committee.” When asked his occupation, he made the same response. He was then asked the question which was to become the subject of the present indictment and conviction: “Mr. Wilkinson, are you now a member of the Communist Party?” He declined to answer the question, giving the same response as before.
The Committee’s Staff Director then addressed the petitioner at length, in explanation “of the reasons, the perti-nency, and the relevancy of that question and certain other questions which I propose to propound to you.”
In response the petitioner stated “I am refusing to answer any questions of this committee.” He was then directed by the Subcommittee Chairman to answer the question as to his Communist Party membership. This time he responded as follows:
“I challenge, in the most fundamental sense, the legality of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It is my opinion that this committee stands in direct violation by its mandate and by its practices of the first amendment to the United States Constitution. It is my belief that Congress had no authority to establish this committee in the first instance, nor to instruct it with the mandate which it has.
“I have the utmost respect for the broad powers which the Congress of the United States must have to carry on its investigations for legislative purposes. However, the United States Supreme Court has held that, broad as these powers may be, the Congress cannot investigate into an area where it cannot legislate, and this committee tends, by its mandate and by its practices, to investigate into precisely those areas of free speech, religion, peaceful association and' assembly, and the press, wherein it cannot legislate and therefore it cannot investigate.”
The hearing continued. The Staff Director read part of the record of an earlier hearing in California, where a witness had testified to knowing the petitioner as a Communist. The petitioner was then asked whether this testimony was true. He refused to answer this and several further questions addressed to him. There was introduced into the record a reproduction of the petitioner’s registration at an Atlanta hotel a week earlier, in which he had indicated that his business firm association was the “Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.”
The subsequent indictment and conviction of the petitioner were based upon his refusal, in the foregoing context, to answer the single question “Are you now a member of the Communist Party?”
II.
The judgment affirming the petitioner's conviction is attacked here from several different directions. It is contended that the subcommittee was without authority to interrogate him, because its purpose in doing so was to investigate public opposition to the Committee itself and to harass and expose him. It is argued that the petitioner was wrongly convicted because the question which he refused to answer was not pertinent to a question under inquiry by the subcommittee, so that a basic element of the statutory offense was lacking. It is said that in any event the pertinency of the question was not made clear to the petitioner at the time he was directed to answer it, so that he was denied due process. Finally, it is urged that the action of the subcommittee in subpoenaing and questioning him violated his rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
In considering these contentions the starting point must be to determine the subject matter of the subcommittee’s inquiry. House Rule XI, which confers investigative authority upon the Committee and its subcommittees, is quoted above. Because of the breadth and generality of its language, Rule XI cannot be said to state with adequate precision the subject under inquiry by a subcommittee at any given hearing. This the Court had occasion to point out in Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178. See also Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 116-117. But, as the Watkins opinion recognized, Rule XI is only one of several possible points of reference. The Court in that case said that “[t]he authorizing resolution, the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee, or even the nature of the proceedings themselves” might reveal the subject under inquiry. 354 U. S., at 209. Here, as in Barenblatt, other sources do supply the requisite concreteness.
. The resolution authorizing the subcommittee hearing in Atlanta was explicit. It clearly set forth three concrete areas of investigation: Communist infiltration into basic industry in the South, Communist Party- propaganda in the South, and foreign Communist Party propaganda in the United States. The pattern of interrogation of the witnesses who appeared on the first day of the hearing confirms that the subcommittee was pursuing those three subjects of investigation. The Staff Director’s statement to the petitioner explicitly referred to the second of the three subjects — Communist Party propaganda in the South. We think that the record thus clearly establishes that the subcommittee at the time of the petitioner’s interrogation was pursuing at least two related and specific subjects of investigation: Communist infiltration into basic southern industry, and Communist Party propaganda activities in that area of the country.
If these, then, were the two subjects of the subcommittee’s inquiry, the questions that must be answered in considering the petitioner’s contentions are several. First, was the subcommittee’s investigation of these subjects, through interrogation of the petitioner, authorized by Congress? Second, was the subcommittee pursuing a valid legislative purpose? Third, was the question asked the petitioner pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation? Fourth, was he contemporaneously apprised of the pertinency of the question? Fifth, did the subcommittee’s interrogation violate his First Amendment rights of free association and free speech?
The question of basic congressional authorization was clearly decided in Barenblatt v. United States, supra. There we said, after reviewing the genesis and subsequent history of Rule XI, that “[I]t can hardly be seriously argued that the investigation of Communist activities generally, and the attendant use of compulsory process, was beyond the purview of the Committee’s intended authority under Rule XI.” 360 U. S., at 120-121. The subjects under inquiry here surely fall within “the investigation'of Communist activities generally.”
The petitioner argues, however, that the subcommittee was inspired to interrogate him by reason of his opposition to the existence of the Un-American Activities Committee itself, and that its purpose was unauthorized harassment and exposure. He points to the Chairman’s opening statement which mentioned activity against the Committee, to the fact that he was subpoenaed to appear before the subcommittee soon after he arrived in Atlanta to stir up opposition to the Committee’s activities, and to the statement of the Staff Director indicating the subcommittee’s awareness of his efforts to develop a “hostile sentiment” to the Committee and to “bring pressure upon the United States Congress to preclude these particular hearings.”
But, just as in Barenblatt, supra, we could find nothing in Rule XI to exclude the field of education from the Committee’s compulsory authority, we can find nothing to indicate that it was the intent of Congress to immunize from interrogation all those (and there are many) who are opposed to the existence of the Un-American Activities Committee.
Nor can we say on this record that the subcommittee was not pursuing a valid legislative purpose. The Committee resolution authorizing the Atlanta hearing, quoted above, expressly referred to two legislative proposals, an amendment to § 4 of the Communist Control Act of 1954 and amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. A number of other sources also indicate the presence of a legislative purpose. The Chairman’s statement at the opening of the hearings contained a lengthy discussion of legislation. The Staff Director’s statement to the petitioner also discussed legislation which the Committee had under consideration. All these sources indicate the existence of a legislative purpose. And the determination that purposes of the kind referred to are unassailably valid was a cornerstone of our decision in Barenblatt, supra: “That Congress has wide power to legislate in the field of Communist activity in this Country, and to conduct appropriate investigations in aid thereof, is hardly debatable. The existence of such power has never been questioned by this Court, and it is sufficient to say, without particularization, that Congress has enacted or considered in this field a wide range of legislative measures, not a few of which have stemmed from recommendations of the very Committee whose actions have been drawn in question here. In the last analysis this power rests on the right of self-preservation. . . 360 U. S., at 127-128.
The petitioner’s contention. that, while the hearing generally may have been pursuant to a valid legislative purpose, the sole reason for interrogating him was to expose him to public censure because of his activities against the Committee is not persuasive. It is true that the Staff Director’s statement reveals the subcommittee’s awareness of the petitioner’s opposition to the hearings and indicates that the petitioner was not summoned to appear until after he had arrived in Atlanta as the representative of a group carrying on a public campaign to abolish the House Committee. These circumstances, however, do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the subcommittee’s intent was personal persecution of the petitioner. As we have noted, a prime purpose of the hearings was to investigate Communist propaganda activities in the South. It therefore was entirely logical for the subcommittee to subpoena the petitioner after he had arrived at the site of the hearings, had registered as a member of a group which the subcommittee believed to be Communist dominated, and had conducted a public campaign against the subcommittee. The fact that the petitioner might not have been summoned to appear had he not come to Atlanta illustrates the very point, for in that event he might not have been thought to have been connected with a subject under inquiry — Communist Party propaganda activities in that area of the country.
Moreover, it is not for us to speculate as to the motivations that may have prompted the decision of individual members of the subcommittee to summon the petitioner. As was said in Watkins, supra, “a solution to our problem is not to be found in testing the motives of committee members for this purpose. Such is not our function. Their motives alone would not vitiate an investigation which had been instituted by a House of Congress if that assembly’s legislative purpose is being served.” 354 U. S., at 200. See also Barenblatt, supra, 360 U. S., at 132.
It is to be emphasized that the petitioner was not summoned to appear as the result of an indiscriminate dragnet procedure, lacking in probable cause for belief that he possessed information which might be helpful to the subcommittee. As was made clear by the testimony of the Committee’s Staff Director at the trial, the subcommittee had reason to believe at the time it summoned the petitioner that he was an active Communist leader engaged primarily in propaganda activities. This is borne out by. the record of the subcommittee hearings, including the content of the Staff Director’s statement to the petitioner and evidence that at a prior hearing the petitioner had been identified as a Communist Party member.
The petitioner’s claim that the question he refused to answer was not pertinent to a subject under inquiry merits no extended discussion. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a preliminary question more pertinent to the topics under investigation than whether petitioner was in fact a member of the Communist Party. As was said in Barenblatt, “petitioner refused to answer questions as to his own Communist Party affiliations, whose per-tinency of course was clear beyond doubt.” 360 U. S., at 125. The contention that the pertinency of the question was not made clear to the petitioner at the time he was directed to answer it is equally without foundation. After the Staff Director gave a detailed explanation of the question’s pertinency, the petitioner said nothing to indicate that he entertained any doubt on this score.
We come finally to the claim that the subcommittee’s interrogation of the petitioner violated his rights under the First Amendment. The basic issues which this contention raises were thoroughly canvassed by us in Baren- blatt. Substantially all that was said there is equally applicable here, and it would serve no purpose to enlarge this opinion with a paraphrased repetition of what was in that opinion thoughtfully considered and carefully expressed. See 360 U. S., at 125-134.
It is sought to differentiate this case upon the basis that “the activities in which petitioner was believed to be participating consisted of public criticism of the Committee and attempts to influence public opinion to petition Congress for redress — to abolish the Committee.” But we cannot say that, simply because the petitioner at the moment may have been engaged in lawful conduct, his Communist activities in connection therewith could not be investigated. The subcommittee had reasonable ground to suppose that the petitioner was an active Communist Party member, and that as such he possessed information that would substantially aid it in its legislative investigation. As the Barenblatt opinion makes clear, it is the nature of the Communist activity involved,' whether the momentary conduct is legitimate or illegitimate politically, that establishes the Government’s overbalancing interest. “To suggest that because the Communist Party may also sponsor peaceable political reforms the constitutional issues before us should now be judged as if that Party were just an ordinary political party from the standpoint of national security, is to ask this Court to blind itself to world affairs which have determined the whole course of our national policy since the close of World War II. . . .” 360 U. S., at 128-129.
The subcommittee’s legitimate legislative interest was not the activity in which the petitioner might have happened at the time to be engaged, but in the manipulation and infiltration of activities and organizations by’persons advocating overthrow of the Government. “The strict requirements of a prosecution under the Smith Act . . . are not the measure of the permissible scope of a congressional investigation into ‘overthrow/ for of necessity the investigatory process must proceed step by step.” 360 U. S., at 130.
We conclude that the First Amendment claims pressed here are indistinguishable from those considered in Barenblatt, and that upon the reasoning and the authority of that case they cannot prevail.
Affirmed.
The applicable statute is 2 U. S. C. § 192. It provides: “Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.” 2 U. S. C. § 192.
Rule X of the Standing Rules of the House of Representatives, as amended by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, c. 753, § 121, 60 Stat. 812, 822, 823.
Rule XI of the Standing Rules (60 Stat. 823, 828). These Standing Rules were specifically adopted by the House, at the beginning of the 85th Congress in 1957 (H. Res. No. 5, 85th Cong., 1st Sess.).
See Braden v. United States, post, p. 431.
“Now, sir, I should like to make an explanation to you of the reasons, the pertinency, and the relevancy of that question and certain, other questions which I propose to propound to you; and I do so for the purpose of laying a foundation upon which I will then request the chairman of this subcommittee to order and direct you to answer those questions.
“The Committee on Un-American Activities has two major responsibilities which it is undertaking to perform here in Atlanta.
“Responsibility number 1, is to maintain a continuing surveillance over the administration and operation of a-number of our internal security laws. In order to discharge that responsibility the Committee on Un-American Activities must undertake to keep abreast of techniques of Communists’ operations in the United States and Communist activities in the United States. In order to know about Communist activities and- Communist techniques, we have got to know who the Communists are and what they are doing.
“Responsibility number 2, is to develop factual information which will assist the Committee on Un-American Activities in appraising legislative proposals before the committee.
“There are pending before the committee a number of legislative proposals which undertake to more adequately cope with the Communist Party and the. Communist conspiratorial operations in the United States. H. R. 9937 is one of those. Other proposals are pending before the committee not in legislative form yet, but in the form of suggestions that there be an outright outlawry of the Communist Party; secondly, that there be registrations required of certain activities of Communists; third, that there be certain amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act because this Congress of the United States has found repeatedly that the Communist Party and Communists in the United State's are only instrumentalities of a Kremlin-controlled world Communist apparatus. Similar proposals are pending before this committee.
“Now with reference to pertinency of this question to your own factual situation, may I say that it is the information of this committee that you now are a hard-core member of the Communist Party; that you were designated by the Communist Party for the purpose of creating and manipulating certain organizations, including the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, the affiliate organizations of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, including a particular committee in California and a particular committee in Chicago, a committee — the name of which is along the line of the committee for cultural freedom, or something of that kind. I don’t have the name before me at the instant.
“It is the information of the committee or the suggestion of the committee that in anticipation of the hearings here in Atlanta, Georgia, you were sent to this area by the Communist Party for the purpose of developing a hostile sentiment to this committee and to its work for the purpose of undertaking to bring pressure upon the United States Congress to preclude these particular hearings. Indeed it is the fact that you were not even subpenaed for these particular hearings until we learned that you were in town for that very purpose and that you were not subpenaed to appear before this committee until you had actually registered in the hotel here in Atlanta.
“Now, sir, if you will tell this committee whether or not, while you are under oath, you are now a Communist, we intend to pursue that area of inquiry and undertake to solicit from you information respecting your activities as a Communist on behalf of the Communist Party, which is tied up directly with the Kremlin; your activities from the standpoint of propaganda; your activities from the standpoint of undertaking to destroy the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Committee on Un-American Activities, because indeed this committee issued a report entitled 'Operation Abolition,’ in which we told something, the information we then possessed, respecting the efforts of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, of which you are the guiding light, to destroy the F. B. I. and discredit the director of the F. B. I. and to undertake to hamstring the work of this Committee on Un-American Activities.”
By contrast, the authorizing resolution that was before the Court in Watkins incorporated by reference the full breadth and generality of Rule XI itself. That resolution simply empowered the Committee Chairman to appoint subcommittees “for the purpose of performing any and all acts which the Committee as a whole is authorized to do.” See 354 U. S., at 211, n. 50.
. . [T]he Committee on Un-American Activities is continuously in the process of accumulating factual information respecting Communists, the Communist Party, and Communist activities which will enable the committee and the Congress to appraise the administration and operation of the Smith Act, the Internal Security Act of 1950, the Communist Control Act of 1954, and numerous provisions of the Criminal Code relating to espionage, sabotage, and subversion. In addition, the committee has before it numerous proposals to strengthen our legislative weapons designed to protect the internal security of this Nation.
“In the course of the last few years, as a result of hearings and investigations, this committee has made over 80 separate recommendations for legislative action. Legislation has been passed by the Congress embracing 35 of' the committee recommendations and 26 separate proposals are currently pending in the Congress on subjects covered by other committee recommendations. Moreover, in the course of the last few years numerous recommendations made by the committee for administrative action have been adopted by the executive agencies of the Government.”
See note 5, supra.
The trial testimony on this score was as follows: “In essence the information of which the committee was possessed was that Mr. Wilkinson was a member of the communist party, that he had been identified by a creditable witness under oath before the committee a short time or within a year or so prior to the Atlanta hearings, identified as a Communist. It was also the information of the committee that Mr. Wilkinson had been designated by the Communist hierarchy in the nation to spearhead or to lead the infiltration into the South of a group known as the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee which itself had been cited by the Internal Security Subcommittee as a communist operation or a communist front. It was the information of the committee that Mr. Wilkinson’s assignments, including setting up rallies and meetings over the country for the purpose of engendering sentiment against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, against the security program of the government, and against the Committee on Un-American Activities and its activities. Mr. Wilkinson had in the course of the relatively recent past prior to his appearance in Atlanta been sent into Atlanta by the communist operation for the purpose of conducting communist activities in the South and more specifically in the Atlanta area. What I’m telling you now is only a general summary, you understand.”
Since both the pertinency of the question and the fact that its pertinency was brought home to the petitioner are so indisputably clear, we need not consider the Government’s contention that the record does not show that the petitioner ever did or said anything that could be understood as-an objection upon grounds of lack of pertinency. See Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 214-215; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 124.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is before us on appellant’s motion to dismiss its appeal under Rule 60. Ordinarily parties may by consensus agree to dismissal of any appeal pending before this Court. However, there is an exception where the dismissal implicates a mandate we have entered in a cause. Our mandate is involved here. We therefore ordered oral argument at which all parties concerned were afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question whether there had been compliance with the mandate. 394 U. S. 970. At the oral argument a number of appellees supported appellant’s motion. They included the United States, the State of California, El Paso Natural Gas Company, Cascade Natural Gas Corporation, Intermountain Gas Company, Northwest Natural Gas Company, the Washington Water Power Company, Washington Natural Gas Company, Idaho Public Utilities Commission, Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Colorado Interstate Corporation, Southern California Gas Company, and Southern Counties Gas Company of California. The motion was opposed by John J. Flynn and I. Daniel Stewart, by brief amicus curiae, and by William M. Bennett, who appeared for the State of California when the case was last here, Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U. S. 129, 131 (1967), and now presents himself, and argued orally, as “consumer spokesman.”
This is a Clayton Act § 7 case, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 18, in which the acquisition of the stock and assets of Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corporation by El Paso Natural Gas Company raised the “ultimate issue” whether “the acquisition substantially lessened competition in the sale of natural gas in California.” United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U. S. 651, 652. We ordered divestiture “without delay.” Id., at 662. That was in 1964. The United States later agreed to settle the case. As to that we said:
“We do not question the authority of the Attorney General to settle suits after, as well as before, they i’each 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.” 386 U. S., at 136.
We set aside that consent decree and remanded for additional findings and a new solution, saying:
“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.” Id., at 135.
On remand the District Court decided it should choose from among the various applicants the one that is “best qualified to make New Company a serious competitor” in the California market. That court chose Colorado Interstate Corp., the only gas pipeline operator among the various applicants.
Under the plan approved by the District Court, El Paso receives 5,000,000 shares of New Company nonvoting preferred stock, convertible into common stock at the end of five years. What the conversion ratio will be is not known; but, it is said, there will be provisions to restrict El Paso control over the New Company. The New Company also assumes approximately $170,000,000 of El Paso’s system-wide bond and debenture indebtedness, an amount designated the Northwest Division’s pro-rata share of that indebtedness.
Utah’s jurisdictional statement, which she now moves to dismiss, was filed here November 25, 1968. That jurisdictional statement presents the question whether the decree entered below satisfies our mandate. It is the filing of that jurisdictional statement that brings the question here. See United States v. du Pont & Co., 366 U. S. 316. In fact, in its jurisdictional statement, Utah urged that the decree does not meet the requirements of du Pont. We thus need not decide whether the papers filed by amicus curiae or Mr. Bennett properly presented the question of compliance. We find that the decree of the District Court does not comply with our mandate: it does not apportion the gas reserves between El Paso and New Company in a manner consistent with the purpose of the mandate, and it does not provide for complete divestiture. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
I.
When the case was last here we said, “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 intervenors that El Paso gets the new reserves in the San Juan Basin — 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 not know what an equitable division would require. Hearings are necessary, followed by meticulous findings made in fight of the competitive requirements to which we have adverted.” 386 U. S., at 136-137.
The District Court awarded 21.8% of the San Juan Basin reserves to the New Company saying that was “no less in relation to present existing reserves” than Northwest had when it was independent. The District Court also gave the New Company more than 50% of the net additions to the reserves developed since the merger. Concededly the total reserves of the New Company will not be sufficient to meet the old Northwest’s existing requirements and those of a California project.
This attempt to paralyze competition in the California market started years ago; the Clayton Act suit was filed in 1957. The record up to the entry of the present decree shows, as the District Court found, that delay has strengthened El Paso’s position. First, the delay has strengthened El Paso’s hold on the California market, making it more and more difficult for a new out-of-state supplier to enter. Second, an additional out-of-state supplier has entered the California market during this 12-year period, taking what well might have been the place of the old Northwest Company had not its competition been stifled. Third, permits for new pipelines from Texas to California are now pending before the Federal Power Commission.
The purpose of our mandate was to restore competition in the California market. An allocation of gas reserves should be made which is “equitable” with that purpose in mind. The position of the New Company must be strengthened and the leverage of El Paso not increased. That is to say, an allocation of gas reserves— particularly those in the San Juan Basin — must be made to rectify, if possible, the manner in which El Paso has used the illegal merger to strengthen its position in the California market. The object of the allocation of gas reserves must be to place New Company in the same relative competitive position vis-á-vis El Paso in the California market as that which Pacific Northwest enjoyed immediately prior to the illegal merger.
A reallocation of gas reserves under this standard may permit an applicant other than Colorado Interstate Corporation to acquire New Company and make it a competitive force in California. Thus, the District Court is directed to effect this reallocation of gas reserves, and, in light of the reallocation, to reopen consideration of which applicant should acquire New Company. Such consideration should, of course, include whether an award to a particular applicant will have any anti-competitive effects either in the California market or in other markets.
II.
Our mandate directed complete divestiture. The District Court did not, however, direct complete divestiture. Neither appellant nor any party supporting the dismissal argues that the District Court did so. Rather they argue that the disposition made by the District Court was the best that might be made without complete divestiture. Clearly this does not comply with our mandate. United States v. du Pont & Co., 366 U. S. 316, was another § 7 case in which we ordered “complete divestiture.” Id., at 328. One plan proposed was a distribution of General Motors shares held by du Pont, most of them to be distributed pro rata over a 10-year period to du Pont stockholders; the rest were to be sold gradually over the same 10-year period. Id., at 319-320. Du Pont’s alternate plan was to retain all attributes of ownership, passing through to its shareholders the voting rights proportional to their holdings of du Pont shares. We did not approve that plan but directed “complete divestiture.” Id., at 334. We said: “The very words of § 7 suggest that an undoing of the acquisition is a natural remedy. Divestiture or dissolution has traditionally been the remedy for Sherman Act violations whose heart is intercorporate combination and control.” 366 U. S., at 329. We said that divestiture only of voting rights was not an adequate remedy. What was necessary was dissolution “of the intercorporate community of interest which we found to violate the law.” Id., at 331.
The reason advanced for allowing El Paso to take a stock interest in the New Company rather than cash is to reduce its income tax burden. We have emphasized that the pinch on private interests is not relevant to fashioning an antitrust decree, as the public interest is our sole concern. United States v. du Pont & Co., supra, at 326.
The same reasoning is applicable to the present case. Retention by El Paso and its stockholders of the preferred stock is perpetuation to a degree of the illegal intercorporate community. Assumption of $170,000,000 of El Paso’s indebtedness helps keep the two companies in league. The severance of all managerial and all financial connections between El Paso and the New Company must be complete for the decree to satisfy our mandate. Only a cash sale will satisfy the rudiments of complete divestiture.
We vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the cause for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Rule 60 (1) provides:
“Whenever the parties thereto shall, by their attorneys of record, file with the clerk an agreement in writing that an appeal, petition for or writ of certiorari, or motion for leave to file or petition for [an] extraordinary writ be dismissed, specifying the terms as respects costs, and shall pay to the clerk any fees that may be due him, the clerk shall, without further reference to the court, enter an order of dismissal.”
It was said by counsel for eight appellees at oral argument: “[W]e do not question this Court’s authority to re-examine its mandate and compliance with it. We do urge, however, that your review be confined to the question whether the mandate has been carried out upon the record before this court.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was brought in federal court by seven groups of Negro residents of Chicago, Illinois, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction against the enforcement of a number of Illinois statutes and Chicago ordinances on the grounds that they violated various provisions of the Federal Constitution. The complaint named as defendants and sought relief against a number of officials of Cook County and the City of Chicago: the Mayor, the Chief Judge, and two Magistrates of the Circuit Court, the State’s Attorney for the county, the Sheriff, the Superintendent of Police, the city’s Corporation Counsel and his assistant, and three city police officers. Their complaint challenged as invalid the Illinois statutes prohibiting mob action, resisting arrest, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and intimidation. They alleged that some of the plaintiffs had been arrested under some of these statutes and that those prosecutions were currently pending in Illinois state courts, and that Negroes were being intimidated in the exercise of their First Amendment rights (1) through the wholesale use of all the statutes alleged to be unconstitutional to prosecute members of the Negro community and (2) through the use of arrests without probable cause, coupled with the setting of exorbitant bail. The complaint contended that the defendants had threatened to enforce all of the named statutes for the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating the plaintiffs. They requested the convening of a three-judge federal court under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284, a declaration that the challenged statutes were unconstitutional, and temporary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the pending and any possible future prosecutions under the statutes in question.
The defendants answered by opposing the convening of a three-judge court and the issuance of a temporary injunction, and moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds, among others, that (1) as to those plaintiffs against whom prosecutions were then pending, there was an adequate remedy at law in that they would be able to present their constitutional challenges to the statutes involved in the pending criminal proceedings, and that as to such plaintiffs the court was barred by 28 U. S. C. § 2283 from issuing an injunction against state court proceedings, and that (2) as to those plaintiffs without matters pending in the state courts, there were no facts alleged in the complaint showing that any of those plaintiffs were threatened with prosecution under any of the challenged statutes, or that they would suffer any irreparable injury if they were required to defend any prosecution that might be brought against them in state court.
The single Federal District Judge denied the defendants’ motion to' dismiss and convened the three-judge court. The three-judge court upheld all of the challenged statutes except for one subsection of the mob-action statute which prohibited “[t]he assembly of 2 or more persons to do an unlawful act . . . ,” and one subsection of the intimidation statute which prohibited intimidating a person by threats to “[cjommit any criminal offense. ...” These last two subsections were declared invalid on the grounds that they were overly broad and might sweep within their scope conduct that could not constitutionally be made criminal. The court decreed that the defendants — city and county officials — • “be and they are hereby perpetually enjoined and restrained from the enforcement of or the prosecution under” the two statutory subsections it declared unconstitutional. The defendant officials did not appeal the three-judge court’s declaration and injunction invalidating the challenged subsection of the mob-action statute and that holding is therefore not before us. We have before us only the court’s declaration of the unconstitutionality and injunction against the enforcement of one subsection of the intimidation statute.
It is obvious that the allegations of the complaint in this case fall far short of showing any irreparable injury from threats or actual prosecutions under the intimidation statute or from any other conduct by state or city officials. Not a single one of the citizens who brought this action had ever been prosecuted, charged, or even arrested under the particular intimidation statute which the court below held unconstitutional. All the charges of the complaint deal broadly and generally with all the state statutes and city ordinances that the appellees originally challenged. In fact, the complaint contains no mention of any specific threat by any officer or official of Chicago, Cook County, or the State of Illinois to arrest or prosecute any one or more of the plaintiffs under that statute either one time or many times. Rather, it appears from the allegations that those who originally brought this suit made a search of state statutes and city ordinances with a view to picking out certain ones that they thought might possibly be used by the authorities as devices for bad-faith prosecutions against them. There is nothing contained in the allegations of the complaint from which one could infer that any one or more of the citizens who brought this suit is in any jeopardy of suffering irreparable injury if the State is left free to prosecute under the intimidation statute in the normal manner. As our holdings today in Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37, and Samuels v. Mackell, ante, p. 66, show, the normal course of state criminal prosecutions cannot be disrupted or blocked on the basis of charges which in the last analysis amount to nothing more than speculation about the future. The policy of a century and a half against interference by the federal courts with state law enforcement is not to be set aside on such flimsy allegations as those relied upon here.
For the reasons set out above and for those set out at greater length today in Younger and Samuels, we reverse.
Reversed and remanded.
Me. Justice Beennan, Me. Justice White, and Me. Justice Maeshall concur in the result.
[For dissenting opinion of Me. Justice Douglas, see ante, p. 68.]
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 25-1 (1967).
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 31-1.
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 12-2.
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 12-4.
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 12-6.
28 U. S. C. §2283 provides that:
“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”
The District Judge found that the challenges to various city ordinances were not appropriate for determination by a three-judge court and these claims were not certified to the three-judge court. In addition, the plaintiffs abandoned their challenge to the constitutionality of the Illinois aggravated assault and aggravated battery statutes.
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 25-1, provides that:
“(a) Mob action consists of any of the following:
“(2) The assembly of 2 or more persons to do an unlawful act . . .
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 12-6, provides that:
“(a) A person commits intimidation when, with intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he communicates to another a threat to perform without lawful authority any of the following acts:
“(3) Commit any criminal offense . . . .”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner has been convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. He asks this Court to reverse his conviction as wanting in that due process of law guaranteed against state encroachment by the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner claims (1) that his conviction was based in part on a coerced confession; (2) that a fair trial was impossible because of inflammatory newspaper reports inspired by the District Attorney; (3) that he was in effect deprived of counsel in the course of his sanity hearing; (4) that there was an unwarranted delay in his arraignment; and (5) that the prosecuting officers unjustifiably refused to permit an attorney to consult petitioner shortly after petitioner’s arrest. Petitioner urges that each of the first three circumstances is independently a deprivation of due process; and that, in any event, the combination of all five circumstances operated to deprive him of a fair trial.
The murder of which petitioner has been convicted occurred on Monday, November 14, 1949; the victim was a girl, aged 6. Petitioner was arrested around noon on Thursday, November 17, 1949. He was arraigned in the Los Angeles Municipal Court at 10 o’clock the following morning, and the City Public Defender was appointed to represent him. A preliminary hearing was held on Monday, November 21, and petitioner was bound over for trial in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. On November 25, petitioner was arraigned in the Superior Court and the County Public Defender was appointed as his counsel. From that point until the conclusion of his trial, petitioner was vigorously defended by two deputies of the County Public Defender’s office. On December 2, 1949, petitioner pleaded both “not guilty” and “not guilty by reason of insanity.” The case came on for trial on January 3, 1950. The issue of guilt was tried to a jury, which, on January 19, returned a verdict of guilty of first degree murder, without recommendation; under California law, this automatically fixed the penalty at death. On January 20, 1950, petitioner waived jury trial on the issue of insanity, and the court found that petitioner was sane at the time of committing the offense. On January 27, 1950, on petitioner’s motion, a private attorney was substituted as petitioner’s counsel. On February 6, 1950, the trial court, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s motion for a new trial, motion in arrest of judgment, and motion to set aside the waiver of jury trial on the issue of insanity.
On appeal the Supreme Court of California unanimously affirmed the conviction. 36 Cal. 2d 615, 226 P. 2d 330. We granted certiorari because of the seriousness of petitioner’s allegations under the Due Process Clause. 342 U. S. 811.
The facts leading to petitioner’s arrest may be summarized as follows:
In the early morning of November 15, 1949, the victim’s body was found behind the incinerator in the back yard of the home of petitioner’s daughter and son-in-law. It was wrapped in a blanket and covered with boxes. A necktie was wound twice around the child’s neck. An axe, knife, and hammer were found in the vicinity of the body. An autopsy revealed that the immediate cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. It also revealed numerous lacerations on the top and sides of the head, six skull fractures, a deep laceration in the back of the neck, abrasions and discolorations on the child’s back, irritation of the external genitalia, and three puncture wounds in the chest.
Suspicion immediately focused on petitioner, who had been visiting his daughter and son-in-law until the day before, when he had disappeared. Some six months before, petitioner had jumped bail on a charge of molesting a small girl and had never since been apprehended. At approximately 11:50 a. m. on November 17, as petitioner entered the bar of a restaurant in downtown Los Angeles, a civilian recognized him as the man whom the police were seeking in connection with the murder. The civilian summoned a police officer, Carlson, who thereupon arrested petitioner.
From this point on there are some conflicts in the testimony, as noted below. Carlson, accompanied by the civilian, took petitioner to the park foreman’s office in nearby Pershing Square, where Carlson called headquarters to report his arrest of petitioner and to request that a police car be sent. Then Carlson, in the presence of the civilian and the park foreman, proceeded to search petitioner. Carlson had petitioner stand facing the wall with his hands raised against it and his feet away from it. While being searched in this position, petitioner pulled his feet closer to the wall and then Carlson, with the side of his shoe, kicked petitioner’s shoes at the toes in order to push petitioner’s feet back into position. The civilian testified that “possibly” Carlson’s foot slipped and hit petitioner’s shin “once or twice.” Carlson testified that at no time did he “strike” petitioner or “inflict any kind of physical injury on him.” No marks were found on petitioner when he was examined by a physician a few hours later. It also appears that after searching petitioner, Carlson took out his blackjack, held it under petitioner’s nose, and said either, “Do you know what this is for?” or “Have you seen this?” Petitioner makes no claim that Carlson used the blackjack on him. While waiting for the police car to arrive the civilian asked petitioner whether he was guilty of the murder, and petitioner “mumbled something under his breath that sounded like T guess I am.’ ” Thereupon, according to the civilian, the park foreman slapped petitioner with his open hand and knocked off petitioner’s glasses.
Without undue delay the police car arrived and petitioner was driven to the District Attorney’s office in the Hall of Justice Building. While en route one of the police officers in the car began a conversation with petitioner by asking him where he had been. Petitioner replied, “Well, after that terrible thing happened, I went down to the beach, down to Ocean Park. I was going to do away with myself.” The officer said, “What do you mean by that terrible thing?” to which petitioner replied, “When the little girl got killed.” The officer then interposed, “Do you mean when you killed the little girl?” and petitioner answered, “Yes. I was going down to the beach. I was going to jump in the ocean and commit suicide but I decided that I would have to pay on the other side so I might as well come back and pay on this side.” The officer testified that he did not promise petitioner any reward or extend to him any hope of immunity, and that he did not use force or threats of any kind. The officer’s entire testimony regarding this conversation is uncontradicted, and, insofar as it contains a confession by petitioner, no objection was made at the trial on the ground that such confession was involuntary.
Petitioner did object at the trial, however, to the introduction in evidence of a confession which he made after his arrival in the District Attorney’s office. Petitioner was brought to the District Attorney’s office at approximately 1 p. m., and an assistant district attorney began questioning petitioner in the presence of some nineteen persons, attaches of the District Attorney and the police department. The entire proceeding was recorded on a recording machine which had been set in operation before petitioner’s arrival. Petitioner stated that on the afternoon of November 14, his victim came to the home of petitioner’s daughter, where petitioner was visiting; he took his victim into the bedroom and made advances upon her; when she began to scream, he became frightened, got hold of her throat, and squeezed it until she became quiet; she started to squirm again, so he took a necktie from the dresser and tied it around her neck; when she continued to move, he took her off the bed, wrapped her in a blanket, and hit her on the temple with a hammer which he had obtained from the kitchen drawer; he then dragged her across the back yard to the incinerator, returned to the kitchen to get an ice pick, and pushed the pick into her three times in an effort to reach her heart; next he got an axe from the garage and hit her on the head and backbone; finally he got a knife from the kitchen and stabbed her in the back of the neck, covered her body with boxes, and left for Ocean Park, a beach resort within the city of Los Angeles, where he remained for the three nights before his apprehension.
Towards the end of the recording petitioner stated that the officers had not threatened or abused him in any way, either in the park foreman’s office or the District Attorney’s office. The recording disclosed no mistreatment at the time of the making of the confession.
The questioning of petitioner in the District Attorney’s office lasted approximately two hours. About 45 minutes after petitioner had begun his confession, an attorney, Mr. Gray, called at the waiting room of the District Attorney’s office and asked for the assistants handling the case. Upon being advised that they were busy he then asked for the District Attorney. Upon being told that the District Attorney was also in conference and could not be disturbed, Mr. Gray asked to see petitioner. It is uncon-tradicted that at that point Mr. Gray stated to a police department inspector who was present in the waiting room that he “just wanted to hear from [petitioner’s] lips whether or not” petitioner had committed the murder, “so that [he] could report back” to petitioner’s son-in-law. Mr. Gray was denied admission to the room in which petitioner was being questioned, but talked to an assistant district attorney after the confession had been completed. Mr. Gray was permitted to see petitioner that evening. Mr. Gray did not represent petitioner during the trial, but on the motion for new trial was substituted, at petitioner’s request, for the Public Defender.
Shortly after 3 p. m., petitioner was taken from the District Attorney’s office to Dr. Marcus Crahan, a physician in charge of the hospital of the county jail, for a physical and mental examination. Dr. Crahan, when called by petitioner as a witness at the trial, testified that he examined petitioner carefully, including his feet and shins, but found no bruises or abrasions of any kind. According to Dr. Crahan, during the examination petitioner stated that since his arrest the police officers had been very kind to him and that he had not been “mistreated” and had been given “every consideration.” Petitioner related to Dr. Crahan the details of the killing.
Petitioner was lodged in the county jail for the night and was arraigned in the Municipal Court at 10 o’clock the following morning, November 18.
Thereafter, in the six weeks’ period between the date of his arraignment and the beginning of his trial, petitioner was examined by four psychiatrists and one clinical psychologist. To each of these persons he stated that he had killed his victim and recounted, in greater or lesser detail, just how he had gone about the killing. These experts, when testifying at the trial (two having been called by the prosecution and three by the petitioner), related to the jury what petitioner had told them. Petitioner did not object at the time, and makes no objection now, to the admission of these confessions on the ground that they were involuntary.
The trial court charged the jury that it could not consider a confession unless it was voluntary; that the jury was the sole judge of voluntariness; and that a confession was not voluntary when obtained by any kind of violence, abuse, or threat, or by “any coaxing, cajoling, or menacing influence which induces in the mind of the defendant the belief or hope that he will gain some advantage by making a confession.” The court further charged that the fact that a confession is made while an accused is under arrest and being detained, or when he is not represented by counsel, or without his having been told that any statement he makes may be used against him, does not in itself make the confession involuntary, but is one circumstance to be considered in determining the voluntariness of the confession. The court admonished the jury to view with caution the testimony of any witness which purports to relate an oral confession by a defendant.
The California Supreme Court stated: “We may assume that, as a matter of law under the circumstances shown,” petitioner’s confession in the District Attorney’s office was involuntary. The court felt, however, that the use of that confession “could not have affected the fairness of [petitioner’s] trial,” because petitioner “thereafter made at least five confessions, of materially similar substance and unquestioned admissibility, which were put in evidence,” and because “[i]t does not appear that the outcome of the trial would have differed” if that confession had been excluded. Therefore the court concluded that use of the confession had not deprived petitioner of due process.
We take a somewhat different view. If the confession which petitioner made in the District Attorney’s office was in fact involuntary, the conviction cannot stand, even though the evidence apart from that confession might have been sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict. Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 402, 404 (1945); Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U. S. 596, 597, n. 1 (1944). That confession was a prominent feature of the trial. First a stenographic transcript of the confession was read, and then a wire recording of it was played to the jury. Under these circumstances we cannot say that the jury’s verdict could not have been based, at least in part, on the confession made in the District Attorney’s office. Since we take this view, we cannot merely “assume,” as did the state supreme court, that that confession was involuntary, but must go on to determine the question of voluntariness.
Petitioner does not so much as suggest that the action of any officer during the taking of the confession was accompanied by force or threats. His sole contention is that the incidents in the park foreman’s office, coupled with the presence of nineteen officers in the District Attorney’s office, render the confession which he made in the latter office involuntary.
This Court has frequently stated that, when faced with the question whether there has been a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by the introduction of an involuntary confession, it must make an independent determination on the undisputed facts. Malinski v. New York, supra, at 404, and cases cited; id., at 438 (dissenting opinion). We adhere to that rule. In the present case, however, we need not confine ourselves to the undisputed facts; for, even if we give petitioner the benefit of every doubt as to the alleged coercion, we do not think it can fairly be said that his confession in the District Attorney’s office was coercion’s product. Whatever occurred in the park foreman’s office occurred at least an hour before he began his confession in the District Attorney’s office, and was not accompanied by any demand that petitioner implicate himself. Likewise his statement to the officer while on the way to the District Attorney’s office was admittedly voluntary. In the District Attorney’s office, petitioner answered questions readily; there was none of the “pressure of unrelenting interrogation” which this Court condemned in Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 54 (1949). Indeed, the record shows that from the time of his arrest until the time of his trial, petitioner was anxious to confess to anybody who would listen — and as much so after he had consulted with counsel as before. His willingness to confess to the doctors who examined him, after he had been arraigned and counsel had been appointed, and in circumstances free of coercion, suggests strongly that petitioner had concluded, quite independently of any duress by the police, “that it was wise to make a clean breast of his guilt.” See Lyons v. Oklahoma, supra, at 604. In the light of all these circumstances, we are unable to say that petitioner’s confession in the District Attorney’s office was the result of coercion, either physical or psychological.
We turn now to petitioner’s contention that the newspaper accounts of his arrest and confession were so inflammatory as to make a fair trial in the Los Angeles area impossible — even though a period of six weeks intervened between the day of his arrest and confession and the beginning of his trial. Here we are not faced with any question as to the permissible scope of newspaper comment regarding pending litigation, see Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252 (1941); Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331 (1946); Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367 (1947); but with the question whether newspaper accounts aroused such prejudice in the community that petitioner’s trial was “fatally infected” with an absence of “that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice.” Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 236 (1941).
The search for and apprehension of petitioner was attended by much newspaper publicity. Between the time of the murder and the time of petitioner’s arrest, newspapers of general circulation in the Los Angeles area featured in banner headlines the “manhunt” which the police were conducting for petitioner. On the day of petitioner’s arrest these newspapers printed extensive excerpts from his confession in the District Attorney’s office, the details of the confession having been released to the press by the District Attorney at periodic intervals while petitioner was giving the confession. On the following Monday, four days later, Los Angeles newspapers reprinted the full text of that confession as it was read into the record at the preliminary hearing. Most of these events were given top billing on the front page of the papers, and were accompanied by large headlines. Petitioner was variously described, both in headlines and in the text of news stories, as a “werewolf,” a “fiend,” a “sex-mad killer,” and the like. The District Attorney announced to the press his belief that petitioner was guilty and sane.
The spate of newspaper publicity accompanying petitioner’s arrest and confession soon abated, however. During the month of December, 1949, petitioner made the headlines of Los Angeles newspapers only infrequently, such as when he entered a plea of “not guilty” on December 2. Petitioner points to certain other events which occurred during that month. The Governor of the State called a special session of the legislature to consider, among other things, the problem of “sex crimes”; the Governor called a one-day conference of law enforcement officers to consider the same subject; a committee of the state legislature investigating sex crimes held hearings in Los Angeles, at which the District Attorney stated that he did not see why sex offenders “shouldn’t be disposed of the same way” as mad dogs; and various citizens’ groups made proposals for studying and dealing with sex crimes. Los Angeles newspapers published accounts of each of these events, and the accounts at times made reference to the murder with which petitioner was charged.
Petitioner’s trial itself was reported by Los Angeles newspapers, usually on inside pages. Petitioner makes no objection to this phase of the newspaper coverage except for the newspapers’ occasional reference to petitioner as a “werewolf.”
While we may deprecate the action of the District Attorney in releasing to the press, on the day of petitioner’s arrest, certain details of the confession which petitioner made, we find that the transcript of that confession was read into the record at the preliminary hearing in the Municipal Court on November 21, four days later. Thus in any event the confession would have become available to the press at that time, for “[w]hat transpires in the court room is public property.” Craig v. Harney, supra, at 374. Petitioner has not shown how the publication of a portion of that confession four days earlier prejudiced the jury in arriving at their verdict two months thereafter.
. We agree with the California Supreme Court that petitioner has failed to show that the newspaper accounts aroused against him such prejudice in the community as to “necessarily prevent a fair trial,” Lisenba v. California, supra, at 236. At the outset, it should be noted that at no point did petitioner move for a change of venue, although the California Penal Code explicitly provides that whenever “a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county” in which a criminal action is pending, the action may, upon motion of the defendant, be removed to “the proper court of some convenient county free from a like objection.” Of course petitioner’s failure to make such a motion is not dispositive of the issue here, since the state court did not decide against petitioner on this ground but rather rejected on the merits his federal constitutional claim. But, in an effort to determine whether there was public hysteria or widespread community prejudice against petitioner at the time of his trial, we think it significant that two deputy public defenders who were vigorous in petitioner’s defense throughout the trial, saw no occasion to seek a transfer of the action to another county on the ground that prejudicial newspaper accounts had made it impossible for petitioner to obtain a fair trial in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
The matter of prejudicial newspaper accounts was first brought to the trial court’s attention after petitioner’s conviction, as one of the grounds in support of a motion for a new trial. At that time petitioner’s present attorney urged that petitioner had been “deprived of the presumption of innocence by the premature release by the District Attorney’s office of the details of the confession,” and offered in support of that allegation certain Los Angeles newspapers published at the time of petitioner’s arrest. The trial court replied as follows:
“[T]he jurors were all thoroughly examined and all definitely stated that they would give to the defendant the benefit of the presumption of innocence. . . . There is nothing to show those jurors ever saw those papers or ever read those papers. They were fully examined so far as defense counsel desired as to any knowledge or information they might have of the case.”
Petitioner does not challenge this statement of the court. Indeed, at no stage of the proceedings has petitioner offered so much as an affidavit to prove that any juror was in fact prejudiced by the newspaper stories. He asks this Court simply to read those stories and then to declare, over the contrary finding of two state courts, that they necessarily deprived him of due process. That we cannot do, at least where, as here, the inflammatory newspaper accounts appeared approximately six weeks before the beginning of petitioner’s trial, and there is no affirmative showing that any community prejudice ever existed or in any way affected the deliberation of the jury. It is also significant that in this case the confession which was one of the most prominent features of the newspaper accounts was made voluntarily and was introduced in evidence at the trial itself.
We find no substance in petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of effective counsel at a critical point in the case, namely, when he waived trial by jury on the issue of insanity. The attorney who consulted with petitioner as to whether he should make such a waiver was the Public Defender himself, although prior to that time two deputy public defenders had handled the case in court. The Public Defender took this action because the trial court, at the conclusion of the trial on the issue of guilt, had requested that he personally attend the trial on the insanity issue. We fail to see how this action harmed petitioner. As the California Supreme Court found, the Public Defender “was familiar with the case, having read the daily transcript and consulted with and advised [his two deputies] and interviewed witnesses during the trial”; moreover, before consulting with petitioner on the waiver question, he discussed the matter with his two deputies. Thereafter, petitioner twice stated in open court, in reply to inquiries by the trial judge, that he wished to waive a jury trial on the issue of insanity. Furthermore, there was no real question as to petitioner’s sanity. He introduced no additional evidence at the sanity hearing; instead the parties stipulated that the sole evidence would be that adduced at the trial on the issue of guilt, plus the complete reports of the psychiatrists who had testified at that trial. Every psychiatrist who had testified, whether on behalf of petitioner or on behalf of the prosecution, had reached the conclusion that petitioner was sane. On the motion for new trial, when petitioner’s present attorney sought to set aside the waiver of jury trial on the issue of insanity, he offered no new evidence relating to petitioner’s mental state and did not indicate that any such evidence was available. We conclude that petitioner received the full assistance of competent counsel in deciding that he wanted the insanity issue tried to the court. On that question, as on all others, he has been afforded “the assistance of zealous and earnest counsel from arraignment to final argument in this Court.” Avery v. Alabama, 308 U. S. 444, 450 (1940).
Nor can we agree with petitioner that a combination of these grounds with other circumstances, namely, unwarranted delay in arraignment and refusal to permit counsel to consult petitioner during the making of the confession, amounts to such unfairness as to deny due process. The arraignment was had within less than twenty-four hours after the arrest. The officials questioned petitioner only during the two-hour period in the District Attorney’s office, described above. The remainder of that afternoon was devoted to a physical and mental examination, to which petitioner makes no objection. Counsel called on petitioner at the county jail at 9:30 p. m. the evening of the arrest; presumably petitioner remained alone from then until the time of his arraignment the following morning. Although the California Supreme Court found that the failure promptly to arraign petitioner before a committing magistrate was a violation of state law, that is not determinative of the issue before us. When this Court is asked to reverse a state court conviction as wanting in due process, illegal acts of state officials prior to trial are relevant only as they bear on petitioner’s contention that he has been deprived of a fair trial, either through the use of a coerced confession or otherwise. Lisenba v. California, supra, at 234, 235, 240; Lyons v. Oklahoma, supra, at 597, n. 2; Gallegos v. Nebraska, 342 U. S. 55, 59, 65 (1951). Upon the facts of this case, we cannot hold that the illegal conduct of the law enforcement officers in not taking petitioner promptly before a committing magistrate, coerced the confession which he made in the District Attorney’s office or in any other way deprived him of a fair and impartial trial.
As to the refusal of the prosecutors to admit counsel during their interrogation of petitioner, counsel stated that he had come to the District Attorney’s office at the request of petitioner’s son-in-law merely to inquire of petitioner as to his guilt. At no point did petitioner himself ask for counsel. In light of these facts, the District Attorney’s refusal to interrupt the examination of petitioner, which had been proceeding for almost an hour, so that counsel could make inquiry for petitioner’s son-in-law, does not constitute a deprivation of due process, either independently or in conjunction with all other circumstances in this case. While district attorneys should always honor a request of counsel for an interview with a client, upon the record before us there is no showing of prejudice. As was said in Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 281 (1942):
“If the result of the adjudicatory process is not to be set at naught, it is not asking too much that the burden of showing essential unfairness be sustained by him who claims such injustice and seeks to have the result set aside, and that it be sustained not as a matter of speculation but as a demonstrable reality.”
The judgment of the Supreme Court of California is
Affirmed.
Petitioner himself did not testify at the trial.
R. 287-288 (testimony of John D. Gray); see also R. 210 (testimony of Inspector J. A. Donahoe).
Three of these psychiatrists had been appointed by the trial court pursuant to Cal. Penal Code, 1951, § 1027.
36 Cal. 2d at 623, 226 P. 2d at 335.
36 Cal. 2d at 623, 226 P. 2d at 336.
Cal. Penal Code, 1951, §§ 1033, 1035.
See Grayson v. Harris, 267 U. S. 352, 358 (1925); International Steel & Iron Co. v. National Surety Co., 297 U. S. 657, 665-666 (1936); Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U. S. 95, 98 (1938); Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 334 U. S. 410, 414, n. 4 (1948).
R. 361-362.
The trial court made this request as a result of certain conduct on the part of one of the deputy public defenders, set forth in the opinion below at 36 Cal. 2d 628, 226 P. 2d 338-339.
36 Cal. 2d at 628, 226 P. 2d at 338.
At no point has petitioner challenged that stipulation. Indeed, the stipulation had been entered into by one of the deputy public defenders, in whom petitioner states he had complete confidence, prior to the time the court asked the Public Defender to be personally present at the insanity trial.
In People v. Adamson, 34 Cal. 2d 320, 333, 210 P. 2d 13, 19 (1949), the Supreme Court of California had this to say about this same Public Defender and his office: “This court can take judicial notice, too, that it would be difficult to find in California any lawyers more experienced or better qualified in defending criminal cases than the Public Defender of Los Angeles County and his staff.”
Cal. Const., Art. I, § 8.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the peculiar-sounding question whether a party who litigates to judgment and loses on all of his claims can nonetheless be a “prevailing party” for purposes of an award of attorney’s fees.
Following a prison riot at the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, inmate Aaron Helms was placed in administrative segregation, a form of restrictive custody, pending an investigation into his possible involvement in the disturbance. More than seven weeks later, a prison hearing committee, relying solely on an officer’s report of the testimony of an undisclosed informant, found Helms guilty of misconduct for striking a corrections officer during the riot. Helms was sentenced to six months of disciplinary restrictive confinement.
While still incarcerated, Helms brought suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against a number of prison officials, alleging that the lack of a prompt hearing on his misconduct charges and his conviction for misconduct on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay testimony violated his rights to due process. The prison officials asserted qualified immunity from suit and contested the constitutional claims on the merits. Before any decision was rendered, Helms was released from prison on parole.
Nearly six months after Helms’ release, the District Court rendered summary judgment against him on his constitutional claims without passing on the defendants’ assertions of immunity. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, finding that “Helms was denied due process unless he was afforded a hearing, within a reasonable time of his initial [segregative] confinement, to determine whether he represented the type of ‘risk’ warranting administrative detention,” Helms v. Hewitt, 655 F. 2d 487, 500 (1981) (Helms I), and that he “suffered a denial of due process by being convicted on a misconduct charge when the only evidence offered against him was a hearsay recital, by the charging officer, of an uncorroborated report of an unidentified informant.” Id., at 502. The District Court was instructed to enter summary judgment for Helms on the latter claim unless the defendants could establish an immunity defense.
Before the proceedings on remand could take place, we granted certiorari to determine whether Helms’ administrative segregation violated the Due Process Clause. We concluded that the prison’s informal, nonadversarial procedures for determining the need for restrictive custody provided all the process that is due when prisoners are removed from the general prison population. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U. S. 460 (1983). Certiorari was not sought on, and we did not decide, the question whether Helms’ misconduct conviction violated his constitutional rights. When the case was returned to the Court of Appeals, it therefore reaffirmed its instruction to the District Court to enter judgment for Helms on this claim unless the defendants established a defense of official immunity. Helms v. Hewitt, 712 F. 2d 48 (1983) (Helms II).
In the District Court, Helms pursued only his claims for damages. The District Court granted summary judgment for all the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity, because the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established,” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982), at the time of Helms’ misconduct hearing. See App. 22a-47a. Helms appealed, seeking both damages and expungement of his misconduct conviction. The defendants argued to the Court of Appeals that all claims for injunctive and declaratory relief had been waived by the failure to pursue them in the District Court, and in any event were moot because Helms was no longer in prison. While that appeal was pending, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections revised its regulations to include for the first time procedures for the use of confidential-source information in inmate disciplinary proceedings. See BC-ADM 801 Administrative Directive: Inmate Disciplinary Procedures §V(F) (1984), App. 101a-102a (Directive 801). The District Court’s decision was affirmed without opinion. Helms v. Hewitt, 745 F. 2d 46 (1984) (Helms III).
Helms then sought attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. §1988, which provides in relevant part: “In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of [§ 1983], the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” The District Court denied the claim on the ground that Helms was not a “prevailing party”: the defendants’ official immunity precluded a damages award, Helms’ release from prison made his claims for injunctive relief moot, and he could not claim that his suit was a “catalyst” for the amendment of Directive 801 because he neither sought nor benefited from that action. App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a-39a. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that its prior holding that Helms’ constitutional rights were violated was “a form of judicial relief which serves to affirm the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendants’ actions were unconstitutional and which will serve as a standard of conduct to guide prison officials in the future.” 780 F. 2d 367, 370 (1986) (Helms IV). The court also directed the District Court to reconsider whether Helms’ suit was a “catalyst” for the amendment of Directive 801. We granted certiorari. 476 U. S. 1181 (1986).
In order to be eligible for attorney’s fees under § 1988, a litigant must be a “prevailing party.” Whatever the outer boundaries of that term may be, Helms does not fit within them. Respect for ordinary language requires that a plaintiff receive at least some relief on the merits of his claim before he can be said to prevail. See Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U. S. 754, 757 (1980). Helms obtained no relief. Because of the defendants’ official immunity he received no damages award. No injunction or declaratory judgment was entered in his favor. Nor did Helms obtain relief without benefit of a formal judgment — for example, through a consent decree or settlement. See Maher v. Gagne, 448 U. S. 122, 129 (1980). The most that he obtained was an interlocutory ruling that his complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to state a constitutional claim. That is not the stuff of which legal victories are made. Cf. Hanrahan, supra, at 758-759.
The Court of Appeals treated its 1981 holding that Helms’ misconduct conviction was unconstitutional as “a form of judicial relief” — presumably (since nothing else is even conceivable) a form of declaratory judgment. It was not that. Helms I explicitly left it to the District Court “to determine the appropriateness and availability of the requested relief,” 655 F. 2d, at 503; the Court of Appeals granted no relief of its own, declaratory or otherwise. The petitioners contend that the court in fact could not have granted declaratory or injunctive relief at that point, since all of Helms’ nonmone-tary claims were moot as a result of his release from prison. Even if that is not correct, and Helms’ interest in expungement of the misconduct conviction from his prison record was enough to keep those claims alive, the fact is that Helms’ counsel never took the steps necessary to have a declaratory judgment or expungement order properly entered. Consequently, Helms received no judicial relief.
It is settled law, of course, that relief need not be judicially decreed in order to justify a fee award under § 1988. A lawsuit sometimes produces voluntary action by the defendant that affords the plaintiff all or some of the relief he sought through a judgment — e. g., a monetary settlement or a change in conduct that redresses the plaintiff’s grievances. When that occurs, the plaintiff is deemed to have prevailed despite the absence of a formal judgment in his favor. See Maher, supra, at 129. The Court of Appeals held, and Helms argues here, that the statement of law in Helms I that Helms’ disciplinary proceeding was unconstitutional is a “vindication of . . . rights,” Brief for Respondent 19, that is at least the equivalent of declaratory relief, just as a monetary settlement is the informal equivalent of relief by way of damages. To suggest such an equivalency is to lose sight of the nature of the judicial process. In all civil litigation, the judicial decree is not the end but the means. At the end of the rainbow lies not a judgment, but some action (or cessation of action) by the defendant that the judgment produces — the payment of damages, or some specific performance, or the termination of some conduct. Redress is sought through the court, but from the defendant. This is no less true of a declaratory judgment suit than of any other action. The real value of the judicial pronouncement — what makes it a proper judicial resolution of a “case or controversy” rather than an advisory opinion — is in the settling of some dispute which affects the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff The “equivalency” doctrine is simply an acknowledgment of the primacy of the redress over the means by which it is obtained. If the defendant, under the pressure of the lawsuit, pays over a money claim before the judicial judgment is pronounced, the plaintiff has “prevailed” in his suit, because he has obtained the substance of what he sought. Likewise in a declaratory judgment action: if the defendant, under pressure of the lawsuit, alters his conduct (or threatened conduct) towards the plaintiff that was the basis for the suit, the plaintiff will have prevailed. That is the proper equivalent of a judicial judgment which would produce the same effect; a judicial statement that does not affect the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is not an equivalent. As a consequence of the present lawsuit, Helms obtained nothing from the defendants. The only “relief” he received was the moral satisfaction of knowing that a federal court concluded that his rights had been violated. The same moral satisfaction presumably results from any favorable statement of law in an otherwise unfavorable opinion. There would be no conceivable claim that the plaintiff had “prevailed,” for instance, if the District Court in this case had first decided the question of immunity, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion which said: “The defendants are immune from suit for damages, and the claim for expungement is either moot or has been waived, but if not for that we would reverse because Helms’ constitutional rights were violated.” That is in essence what happened here, except that the Court of Appeals expressed its view on the constitutional rights before, rather than after, it had become apparent that the issue was irrelevant to the case. There is no warrant for having status as a “prevailing party” depend upon the essentially arbitrary order in which district courts or courts of appeals choose to address issues.
Besides the incompatibility in principle, there is a very practical objection to equating statements of law (even legal holdings en route to a final judgment for the defendant) with declaratory judgments: The equation deprives the defendant of valid defenses to a declaratory judgment to which he is entitled. Imagine that following Helms I, Helms’ counsel, armed with the holding that his client’s constitutional rights had been violated, pressed the District Court for entry of a declaratory judgment. The defendants would then have had the opportunity to contest its entry not only on the ground that the case was moot but also on equitable grounds. The fact that a court can enter a declaratory judgment does not mean that it should. See 28 U. S. C. § 2201 (a court “may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration”) (emphasis added); Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 369 U. S. 111, 112 (1962); Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood, 333 U. S. 426, 431 (1948). If, for example, Helms I had unambiguously involved only a claim for damages, the requested declaratory judgment would not definitively “settle the controversy between the parties,” 10A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §2759, p. 648 (2d ed. 1983), because immunity might still preclude liability. See generally E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments 299 (2d ed. 1941). If the only effect of a declaratory judgment in those circumstances would be to provide a possible predicate for a fee award against defendants who may ultimately be found immune, and thus to undermine the doctrine of official immunity, it is conceivable that the court might take that into account in deciding whether to enter a judgment. The same considerations may not enter into the decision whether to include statements of law in opinions — or if they do, the court’s decision is not appealable in the same manner as its entry of a declaratory judgment.
We conclude that a favorable judicial statement of law in the course of litigation that results in judgment against the plaintiff does not suffice to render him a “prevailing party.” Any other result strains both the statutory language and common sense.
The Court of Appeals held in the alternative, and Helms argues in the alternative here, that a hearing is needed to determine whether Helms’ lawsuit prompted the Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections to amend its regulations in 1984 to provide standards for the use of informant testimony at disciplinary hearings. We need not decide the circumstances, if any, under which this “catalyst” theory could justify a fee award under § 1988, because even if Helms can demonstrate a clear causal link between his lawsuit and the State’s amendment of its regulations, and can “prevail” by having the State take action that his complaint did not in terms request, he did not and could not get redress from promulgation of the informant-testimony regulations. When Directive 801 was amended, Helms had long since been released from prison. Although he has subsequently been returned to prison, and is presumably now benefiting from the new procedures (to the extent that they influence prison administration even when not directly being applied), that fortuity can hardly render him, retroactively, a “prevailing party” in this lawsuit, even though he was not such when the final judgment was entered.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the court of appeals 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:
|
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. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves an appeal from a decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals upholding the validity, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, of the apportionment of seats in the Maryland Senate.
I.
Appellants, residents, taxpayers and voters in four populous Maryland counties (Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Montgomery and Prince George’s) and the City of Baltimore, and an unincorporated association, originally brought an action in the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, in August 1960, challenging the apportionment of the Maryland Legislature. Defendants below, sued in their representative capacities, were various officials charged with duties in connection with state elections. Plaintiffs below alleged that the apportionment of both houses of the Maryland Legislature, pursuant to Art. Ill, §§ 2 and 5, of the 1867 Maryland Constitution, as amended, discriminated against inhabitants of the more populous counties and the City of Baltimore by according these persons substantially less representation than that given to persons residing in other areas of the State. They contended that the alleged legislative malappor-tionment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since that provision prohibits any State from “denying, diluting or restricting the equality of voting rights or privileges among classes of otherwise eligible voters similarly situated,” and asserted that there was no political remedy practicably available under Maryland law to obtain the relief sought.
Plaintiffs below sought a declaratory judgment that Art. Ill, §§ 2 and 5, of the Maryland Constitution deny them and those similarly situated rights protected under the Equal Protection Clause, and that the failure of the Maryland Legislature to reapportion its membership in accordance with a formula which would reasonably reflect present population figures deprived them of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs also requested a declaration that the failure of the Maryland General Assembly to convene a constitutional convention as approved by a majority of the State’s voters in the general election of 1950 violated various provisions of the State'Constitution.
Plaintiffs requested that, unless the November 1962 election and elections thereafter were conducted on an at-large basis, the court enjoin defendants from performing various election duties until such time as the General Assembly should submit for a referendum vote by eligible state voters an amendment to Art. HI, §§ 2 and 5, which would reapportion the membership of the Maryland Legislature on a population basis in conformity with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs also asked the court to retain jurisdiction of the case until the General Assembly submitted such a constitutional amendment to the State’s voters.
On February 21, 1961, the Circuit Court sustained defendants’ demurrers to plaintiffs’ complaint and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. On appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals, on April 25,1962, splitting 5-to-2, reversed the order of the Circuit Court and remanded the case for a hearing on the merits. 228 Md. 412, 180 A. 2d 656. Finding that the federal questions raised were not non justiciable in a Maryland state court, the Maryland Court of Appeals, after discussing this Court’s decision in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, stated that
“if any action needs to be taken in order to bring the State’s system of legislative apportionment into conformity with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment ... , it is preferable from the point of view of responsible self-government that the State’s own duly constituted officials and the people themselves undertake the task, rather than leave to the Federal judiciary the delicate and perhaps unwelcome task of doing so.”
While recognizing that “[tjhere was no need in Baker v. Carr ... for the Supreme Court to pass upon the power of a State court to deal with questions of State legislative apportionment,” the Maryland Court of Appeals found “implicit in the vacation of the judgment and remand by the Supreme Court of the United States to the Supreme Court of Michigan of the case of Scholle v. Hare” this Court’s view that cases challenging the constitutionality of state legislative apportionments are “appropriate for consideration by a State court . ...” Finding “a strong implication in the Baker decision that there must be some reasonable relationship of population, or eligible voters, to representation in the General Assembly, if an apportionment is to escape the label of constitutionally-prohibited invidious discrimination,” the Maryland court nevertheless stated that it was not “possible (or advisable if it were possible) to state a precise, inflexible and intractable formula for constitutional representation in the General Assembly.” In remanding to the lower state court to “receive evidence to determine whether or not an invidious discrimination does exist with respect to representation in either or both houses” of the Maryland Legislature, the Court of Appeals stated that, if the Maryland constitutional provisions relating to legislative apportionment were held invalid as to the November 1962 election, the Circuit Court should “also declare that the Legislature has the power, if called into Special Session by the Governor and such action be deemed appropriate by it, to enact a bill reapportioning its membership for purposes” of that election.
On May 24, 1962, the Circuit Court, after receiving various exhibits and hearing argument, held that the apportionment of the Maryland House of Delegates invidiously discriminated against the people of Baltimore, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, but not against the people of Baltimore City or Anne Arundel County, and that therefore Art. Ill, § 5, of the Maryland Constitution, which apportions seats in the House of Delegates, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although stating that the apportionment of the Maryland Senate might be “constitutionally based upon area and geographical location regardless of population or eligible voters,” the Circuit Court refrained from formally passing on the validity of the senatorial apportionment. The lower court also stated that the Maryland Legislature had the power to enact a statute providing for the reapportionment of the House of Delegates as well as to propose a constitutional amendment providing for such a reapportionment. It withheld the granting of injunctive relief but retained jurisdiction to do so before the November 1962 election if such became appropriate.
On May 31, 1962, the Maryland Legislature, called into special session by the Governor, enacted temporary “stop-gap” legislation reapportioning seats in the House of Delegates, by allocating 19 added seats to the more populous areas of the State. However, the legislature failed to pass a proposed constitutional amendment reapportioning the Maryland House. The newly enacted apportionment statute expires automatically on January 1,1966, except that, if a constitutional amendment superseding the statutory provisions is submitted to the voters at the 1964 general election and is rejected, the statute will continue in force until January 1, 1970. The statute further provides that upon its expiration the House of Delegates shall again be apportioned according to Art. Ill, § 5, which the Circuit Court had previously held unconstitutional. No appeal was taken from the Circuit Court’s decision holding invalid the existing apportionment of the Maryland House of Delegates.
Following the Circuit Court’s failure to rule upon the validity of the senatorial apportionment, plaintiffs appealed this question to the Maryland Court of Appeals. On June 8, 1962, the Court of Appeals ordered the case remanded to the Circuit Court for a prompt decision on whether Art. Ill, § 2, of the Maryland Constitution, apportioning seats in the Senate, was valid or invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. On June 28, 1962, the Circuit Court held that the apportionment of the Maryland Senate did not violate the Federal Constitution because it felt that an apportionment based upon area and geographical location, without regard to population, served to protect minorities, preserve legislative checks and balances, and prevent hasty, though temporarily popular, legislation, and accorded with history, tradition and reason, placing considerable reliance on a comparison of that body of the Maryland Legislature with the Federal Senate.
On July 23, 1962, the Maryland Court of Appeals, splitting 5-to-3, in a per curiam order- affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision holding valid the apportionment of the Maryland Senate, noting that its reasons would be stated in an opinion to be filed at a later date. Plaintiffs’ motion for reargument, calling attention to recent decisions and developments relating tó legislative apportionment, was denied by the Maryland Court of Appeals on September 11, 1962. On September 25, 1962, the Court of Appeals filed its opinion. 229 Md. 406, 184 A. 2d 715. It stated initially that the appeal did not question the apportionment of the Maryland House. Continuing, the Maryland court indicated that it was affirming the decision below and upholding the constitutionality of the senatorial apportionment, on the grounds that: (1) Each Maryland county has since 1837 had the same number of Senate seats, except that Baltimore City had periodically been given additional representation, and Maryland counties "have always been an integral part of the state government” and have consistently possessed and maintained “distinct individualities”; (2) since the idea of a bicameral legislature assumes two different methods of apportionment in the two Houses to check “hasty and ill-conceived legislation,” one house can be constitutionally apportioned on a nonpopulation, geographical basis; and (3) geographical representation in the Maryland Senate, based on political subdivisions, is closely analogous to the representation of the States in the Federal Senate. The dissenting judges pointed out that the House of Delegates, even as reapportioned, was still not apportioned on a population basis, and that gross disparities from population-based representation existed in the senatorial apportionment. The dissenters found that neither history nor reliance on the so-called federal analogy provided a rational basis for such gross disparities from population-based representation as were found in the apportionment of the Maryland Legislature, before and after the 1962 reapportionment. Since the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the senatorial apportionment plan, the November 1962 election of senators was conducted pursuant thereto, and delegates were elected under the scheme provided by the 1962 legislation. Notice of appeal to this Court from the Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision was timely filed, and we noted probable jurisdiction on June 10, 1963. 374 U. S. 804.
II.
The Maryland Constitution of 1867 vests legislative power in a bicameral General Assembly consisting of a Senate and a House of Delegates. According to official census figures, Maryland had a 1960 population of 3,100,689, and the combined population of the five most-populous political subdivisions of Maryland — the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Montgomery and Prince George’s, and the City of Baltimore — was 2,336,409. Thus, about 75.3% of the State’s total population lived in these five most populous subdivisions, as of 1960, while about 24.7% lived in the remaining 19 counties of the State. Under Art. Ill, § 2, of the Maryland Constitution, each of the State’s 23 counties is allocated one seat in the Maryland Senate, and each of the six legislative districts of the City of Baltimore is also entitled to one Senate seat — resulting in a total of 29 seats in the Maryland Senate. Thus, the five most populous political subdivisions, with over three-fourths of the State’s total 1960 population, are represented by only 10 senators, or slightly over one-third of the membership of that body. On the other hand, the remaining 19 counties, with an aggregate population of less than one-fourth of the State’s population, are nevertheless represented by 19 senators, almost two-thirds of the members of that body. And the 15 least populous counties, with only 14.1% of the total state population, can elect a controlling majority of the members of the Maryland Senate. A maximum population-variance ratio of almost 32-to-l exists between the most populous and least populous counties. Kent County, with a 1960 population of 15,481, and Calvert County, where only 15,826 resided, are each entitled to one Senate seat, while Baltimore County, with a 1960 population of 492,428, is likewise entitled to only one senator.
As to the apportionment of the Maryland House of Delegates, Art. Ill, § 5, of the Maryland Constitution, in force when this litigation was commenced but subsequently held unconstitutional by the Maryland courts and superseded by the temporary legislation enacted in 1962, prescribed the representation accorded to each of the State’s political subdivisions in the Maryland House. The membership of the House was numerically fixed at 123 by this constitutional provision, with each county being given at least two House seats. Seven counties were given two seats each, five counties were allocated three seats, and four counties were given four House members. The remaining seven counties, including all of those four populous counties where appellants reside, were each allotted six House seats, and the six legislative districts of the City of Baltimore were given six delegates each. Under the then-existing House apportionment, the five most populous political subdivisions, with 75.3% of the State’s 1960 population, elected only 60 delegates, or less than one-half of the members of the House of Delegates, while the other 19 counties, with only 24.7% of the population, were represented by 63 delegates, or 51.3% of the total membership. A maximum population-variance ratio of over 12-to-l existed between the most populous and least populous counties. Baltimore County, with a 1960 population of 492,428, had only the same number of House seats, six, as did Garrett and Somerset Counties, whose combined 1960 population was 40,043.
Under the 1962 temporary legislation reapportioning the Maryland House of Delegates, the only practical effect is to add 19 House seats, increasing the membership of that body from 123 to 142, for the four.-year terms of delegates elected in November 1962. Seven seats were added for Baltimore County, four delegates each were added for Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, two of Baltimore City’s legislative districts were given two and one additional seats, respectively, and one seat was added for Anné Arundel County. The basic scheme embodied in the temporary legislation is to allocate two House seats to each county and to each of the six Baltimore City legislative districts, and then to distribute the remaining seats, out of a fixed number of 123, among the counties on a population basis. The new law provided, however, that during the initial four-year period of its operation, “and for any additional period during which . . . [it] may be extended,” each county and legislative district would be entitled, as a minimum, to the number of House seats that it had on January 1, 1962. Thus, this means that in actuality there will be more than 123 delegates and that the counties and legislative districts which were allegedly overrepresented under the old constitutional provisions will retain much of their former relative power. Under the new legislation, the five most populous subdivisions, with 75.3% of the State’s 1960 population, elect 79 delegates, or 55.6% of the members in the Maryland House. The remaining 19 counties, with less than one-fourth of the State’s population, elect 44.4% of the members of the House of Delegates. Counties with only 35.6% of the State’s total population elect a majority of the members of the House under the 1962 legislation. A maximum population-variance ratio of almost 6-to-l still exists between the most populous and least populous House districts. A delegate from Somerset County represents an average of 6,541 persons, whereas a delegate from Baltimore County represents an average of 37,879. Under both the previous and present apportionment provisions, members of both the Senate and the House of Delegates in Maryland are all elected to serve four-year terms. None of the Maryland counties, under either the old or revised House apportionment schemes, were divided into districts for the purpose of electing delegates. Rather, all House members are elected at large within each county (and legislative district), regardless of the number of seats allocated thereto.
Maryland law makes no provision for the initiation of legislation or constitutional amendments by the people. Certain constitutional provisions provide, however, for the taking, at a general election each 20 years, of “the sense of the People in regard to calling a Convention for altering this Constitution.” Pursuant to these provisions, a statewide referendum on whether a constitutional convention, which would have the power to propose amendments to the Maryland Constitution, including amendments relating to the reapportionment of representation in the General Assembly, should be called was submitted to the State’s voters at the general election in 1950. An overwhelming majority of the voters (by a vote of 200,439 to 56,998) indicated their approval of the calling of a constitutional convention. Nevertheless, even though numerous bills providing for the convening of a constitutional convention were introduced into the General Assembly between 1951 and 1962, the General Assembly repeatedly refused to enact the necessary enabling legislation. Thus, despite the favorable vote of the State’s electorate, no constitutional convention has ever been convened. The next such vote will not be taken until 1970, and, even if the people again approve the calling of a constitutional convention, it cannot be actually convened without the enactment of enabling legislation by the Maryland General Assembly.
Although over 10 reapportionment bills were introduced into the General Assembly between 1951 and 1960, all failed to pass because of opposition by legislators from the less populous counties. Both houses of the General Assembly, during its 1960 regular session, declined to pass bills incorporating the limited reapportionment recommendations of a special commission created by the Governor in 1959 to investigate and report on the matter of legislative reapportionment. Numerous proposed reapportionment amendments and reapportionment bills were introduced at the regular session of the Maryland Legislature in 1961 and 1962, but all failed of passage. Relief from the allegedly discriminatory apportionment through constitutional amendment was also apparently unavailable, as a practical matter, to appellants. Article XIV, § 1, of the Maryland Constitution requires a three-fifths affirmative vote of the membership of both houses of the General Assembly in order to have proposed constitutional amendments submitted to the State’s voters at a referendum. Admittedly, legislators from the less populous counties controlled each house of the Maryland Legislature. And even if a constitutional convention were convened, representation at the convention would be based on the allocation of seats in the allegedly malapportioned General Assembly. Significantly, the Maryland Court of Appeals, in its initial opinion in this litigation, stated that “the chances of the appellants’ obtaining relief from the infringement upon their alleged constitutional rights, other than from the courts, is so remote as to be practically nil.”
Neither in the Maryland Constitution nor in the state statutes is there any provision relating to the reapportionment of representation in the General Assembly. Apart from the limited and temporary reapportionment of the House enacted at the 1962 special session of the Maryland Legislature, following the holding of the Circuit Court that the House apportionment provisions of the Maryland Constitution were invalid, all efforts since 1867 to achieve a substantial reapportionment of seats in the General Assembly, with two rather minor exceptions, have been futile. In 1900, the City of Baltimore, because of its expanding population, was given an additional Senate seat and an additional legislative district, bringing its total to four senators and legislative districts. Two additional senators and two more legislative districts were added to Baltimore City’s representation in 1922. Apart from these increases in the legislative representation of the City of Baltimore, membership in the Maryland Senate remains as provided for in the 1867 Constitution. And, until 19 additional House seats were created and distributed among the five most populous political subdivisions in 1962, representation in the House of Delegates had been based, for a period of 95 years, on the limited-population formula embodied in the 1867 Maryland Constitution.
III.
In its unreported opinion holding the Maryland senatorial apportionment valid, the Circuit Court, after referring to the reapportionment of seats in the House of Delegates by the Maryland Legislature, stated: “It appears, therefore, and the Petitioners have conceded, that the Lower House has been legally reapportioned according to population.” And the Maryland Court of Appeals, in its opinion upholding the Circuit Court’s decision that the senatorial apportionment was constitutionally valid, pointed out that the instant appeal was from the lower court’s decision on remand of the previously undecided question as to the validity of the senatorial apportionment, and stated: “No question is presented as to the validity of the ‘stop-gap’ legislation or the reapportionment of the House of Delegates.” Questioning the validity of the majority’s assumption in this regard, the dissenters stated:
“The majority of this Court in the present case seems to accept tacitly, if not expressly, the view that if one house of the Maryland General Assembly (the Senate) may be apportioned on a basis which ignores disparities of population, the other house (the House of Delegates) must be apportioned with due regard to population, and assumes that the House of Delegates now is so apportioned. It is true that the apportionment of the House is not under attack on this appeal and no question with regard thereto is now before us. It is also true, however, that even as reapportioned by the May 1962 Special Session of the General Assembly, considerable disparities still exist in a number of instances, though previous disparities have been materially reduced. . . . There is no such close relationship between population and representation as in the case of the Michigan House .... Surely, the present Maryland apportionment is not so closely related to population as is that of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. In that respect the Federal analogy is far from perfect.”
Appellants have continually asserted that not only is the constitutional validity of the apportionment of the Maryland Senate at issue in this appeal, but that also presented for decision is the sufficiency, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, of “the combined total representation provided for in both Houses of the Maryland General Assembly.” Appellees, on the other hand, have repeatedly contended that the sole question presented in this appeal is whether one house of a bicameral state legislature, i. e., the Maryland Senate, can be apportioned on a basis other than population, where the other house is presumably apportioned on a strict population basis. Appellees have argued that, since the courts below assumed and appellants allegedly conceded that the Maryland House of Delegates, as reapportioned in 1962, is apportioned on a population basis, and since the decisions of the state courts below here appealed from considered only the validity of the apportionment of the Maryland Senate, this Court is precluded from considering the validity of the apportionment of the Maryland House and is required to assume that that body is now apportioned on a population basis.
Regardless of possible concessions made by the parties and the scope of the consideration of the courts below, in reviewing a state legislative apportionment case this Court must of necessity consider the challenged scheme as a whole in determining whether the particular State’s apportionment plan, in its entirety, meets federal constitutional requisites. It is simply impossible to decide upon the validity of the apportionment of one house of a bicameral legislature in the abstract, without also evaluating the actual scheme of representation employed with respect to the other house. Rather, the proper, and indeed indispensable, subject for judicial focus in a legislative apportionment controversy is the overall representation accorded to the State’s voters, in both houses of a bicameral state legislature. We therefore reject appellees’ contention that the Court is precluded from considering the validity of the apportionment of the Maryland House of Delegates. We cannot be compelled to assume that the Maryland House is presently apportioned on a population basis, when that is in fact plainly not so. Furthermore, whether or not the House is apportioned on a population basis, the scheme of legislative representation in Maryland cannot be sustained under the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution, because of the gross disparities from population-based representation in the apportionment of seats in the Maryland Senate.
IV.
In Reynolds v. Sims, ante, p. 533, decided also this date, we held that seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature are required, under the Equal Protection Clause, to be apportioned substantially on a population basis. Neither house of the Maryland Legislature, even after the 1962 legislation reapportioning the House of Delegates, is apportioned sufficiently on a population basis to be constitutionally sustainable. Thus, we conclude that the Maryland Court of Appeals erred in holding the Maryland legislative apportionment valid, and that the decision below must be reversed.
We applaud the willingness of state courts tó assume jurisdiction and render decision in cases involving challenges to state legislative apportionment schemes. However, in determining the validity of a State’s apportionment plan, the same federal constitutional standards are applicable whether the matter is litigated in a federal or a state court. Maryland’s plan is plainly insufficient under the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause as spelled out in our opinion in Reynolds.
For the reasons stated in Reynolds, appellees' reliance on the so-called federal analogy as a sustaining principle for the Maryland apportionment scheme, despite significant deviations from population-based representation in both houses of the General Assembly, is clearly misplaced. And considerations of history and tradition, relied upon by appellees, do not, and could not, provide a sufficient justification for the substantial deviations from population-based representation in both houses of the Maryland Legislature.
In view of the circumstances of this case, we feel it inappropriate to discuss remedial questions at the present time. Since all members of both houses of the Maryland General Assembly were elected in 1962, and since all Maryland legislators are elected to serve four-year terms, the next election of legislators in Maryland will not be conducted until 1966. Thus, sufficient time exists for the Maryland Legislature to enact legislation reapportioning seats in the General Assembly prior to the 1966 primary and general elections. With the Maryland constitutional provisions relating to legislative apportionment hereby held unconstitutional, the Maryland Legislature presumably has the inherent power to enact at least temporary reapportionment legislation pending adoption of state constitutional provisions relating to legislative apportionment which comport with federal constitutional requirements.
Since primary responsibility for legislative apportionment rests with the legislature itself, and since adequate time exists in which the Maryland General Assembly can act, the Maryland courts need feel obliged to take further affirmative action only if the legislature fails to enact a constitutionally valid state legislative apportionment scheme in a timely fashion after being afforded a further opportunity by the courts to do so. However, under no circumstances should the 1966 election of members of the Maryland Legislature be permitted to be conducted pursuant to the existing or any other unconstitutional plan. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views stated here and in our opinion in Reynolds v. Sims.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Clark concurs in the reversal for the reasons stated in his concurring opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, ante, p. 687, decided this date.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see ante, p. 589.]
Mr. Justice Stewart.
In this case there is no finding by this Court or by the Maryland Court of Appeals that Maryland’s apportionment plan reflects “no policy, but simply arbitrary and capricious action or inaction.” Nor do I think such a finding on the record before us would be warranted. Consequently, on the basis of the constitutional views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, post, p. 744. I would affirm the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals unless the Maryland apportionment “could be shown systematically to prevent ultimate effective majority rule.” The Maryland court did not address itself to this question. Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment and remand this case to the state court for full consideration of this issue.
Id., at 428, 180 A. 2d, at 664.
Id., at 433-434, 180 A. 2d, at 667-668.
Md. Ann. Code (1962 Supp.), Art. 40, §42.
Included as Appendix B to the dissenting opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals is a chart comparing the senatorial representation of the City of Baltimore and the four most populous counties with that of the other counties in the State. 229 Md., at 430, 184 A. 2d, at 730.
Article III, § 4, of the 1867 Maryland Constitution provided for a minimum of two delegates per county, with increases proportional to population up to a total of six when a county’s population reached 55,000, but made no provision for additional delegates after a county’s population reached and exceeded 55,000. In 1950, Art. Ill, § 5, was adopted as a constitutional amendment freezing the representation in the House of Delegates on the basis of the allocation of House seats under the 1940 federal census. The purpose of this amendment was to prevent the smaller counties from continuing to receive increased House representation at the expense of the larger political subdivisions which, under the 1867 formula, were not entitled to any more than six delegates after their population had reached 55,000, regardless of how much it might increase thereafter. Additionally, Art. Ill, § 4, of the Maryland Constitution, as amended, provides for altering the boundaries of the legislative districts of the City of Baltimore to provide for approximately equal population among the six districts.
According to the provisions of Art. Ill, §§ 2, 6, and 7, of the Maryland Constitution.
Appendix A to the dissenting opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals contains a chart showing the populations, according to 1960 census figures, and representation of Maryland’s 23 counties and the City of Baltimore in the two houses of the Maryland General Assembly, including figures relating to the apportionment of seats in the House of Delegates both before and after the 1962 reapportionment legislation. Also included in this chart are figures showing the number of persons represented by each delegate, and computations of the relative values of votes for delegates and senators in each of the State’s political subdivisions. 229 Md., at 429, 184 A. 2d, at 728-729.
Article XYI, §§2-5, of the Maryland Constitution provides a procedure for the conducting of a referendum vote by the people on certain types of legislative enactments, however, upon the filing of a petition signed by at least 3% of the State’s qualified voters.
For a discussion of the lack of federal constitutional significance of the presence or absence of an available political remedy, see Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, post, pp. 736-737, decided also thjis date.
Md. Const., Art. XIV, § 2.
Despite the clear mandate of Art. XIV, § 2, of the State Constitution, which states that “if a majority of voters at such election or elections shall vote for a Convention, the General Assembly, at its next session, shall provide by Law for the assembling of such convention, and for the election of Delegates thereto.”
Compare the situation existing in Colorado, with respect to the availability of a political remedy, as discussed in our opinion in Lucas, post, pp. 732-733.
Pursuant to Art. XIV, § 2, of the Maryland Constitution, which provides: “Each County, and Legislative District of the City of Baltimore, shall have in such Convention a number of Delegates equal to its representation in both Houses at the time at which the Convention is called.”
228 Md., at 432-433, 180 A. 2d, at 667.
In fact, there has been no substantial change in the scheme of legislative representation in Maryland since 1837, when the system of indirect election of senators was abolished. In 1864 the City of Baltimore was given additional representation in the form of three legislative districts, with one senator for each of the three districts. A constitutional convention in 1867, which adopted the existing Maryland Constitution, confirmed the increased representation accorded the City of Baltimore, but otherwise based the legislative apportionment provisions which it adopted on the 1837 scheme.
For a discussion of various aspects of the Maryland legislative apportionment situation, including the instant litigation, see Note, Senate Reapportionment — The Maryland Experience, 31 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 812 (1963).
229 Md., at 410, 184 A. 2d, at 716.
Id., at 421-422, 184 A. 2d, at 723-724.
A commendable example of an exercise of judicial responsibility by a state court in a case involving state legislative apportionment is provided by the action of the Kansas Supreme Court in Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 183, 387 P. 2d 771 (1963). In that case the Kansas Supreme Court held that the statutory provisions apportioning seats in both houses of the Kansas Legislature were constitutionally invalid, but afforded the legislature a further opportunity to enact a constitutionally valid plan prior to the 1964 primary and general elections. Of course, this decision by the Kansas Supreme Court is not presently before us, and we indicate no view as to the merits in that case.
The pattern of prolonged legislative inaction with respect to legislative apportionment matters and the existence of a rural strangle hold on the legislature in Maryland closely parallels the situation existing in Alabama, although Maryland, unlike Alabama, has no state constitutional provision requiring decennial legislative reapportionment.
See Reynolds v. Sims, ante, pp. 571-576.
Additionally, the Maryland legislative apportionment scheme here attacked fails to resemble the plan of representation in the Federal Congress in at least two important respects: the Maryland House, even as reapportioned in 1962, is clearly not apportioned on a population basis, and political subdivisions are not accorded the same number of senatorial seats, since, although each of Maryland’s. 23 counties is given only one Senate seat, six senators are allotted to the City of Baltimore.
See Reynolds v. Sims, ante, p. 585.
See 228 Md., at 438-440,180 A. 2d, at 670-671, where the Maryland Court of Appeals stated that, if the Maryland constitutional provisions relating to legislative apportionment were found invalid by the lower court, the Maryland Legislature would have the power to enact reapportionment legislation, “because the powers of the General Assembly of Maryland are plenary, except as limited by constitutional provisions.” See also the reference to this matter earlier in this opinion, ante, at 661.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a national both of the United States and of Japan, was indicted for treason, the overt acts relating to his treatment of American prisoners of war. He was convicted of treason after a jury trial (see 96 F. Supp. 824) and the judgment of conviction was affirmed. 190 F. 2d 506. The case is here on certiorari. 342 U. S. 932.
First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth (Amendment XIV, § 1) and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 97.
In 1939 shortly before petitioner turned 18 years of age he went to Japan with his father to visit his grandfather. He traveled on a United States passport; and to obtain it he took the customary oath of allegiance. In 1940 he registered with an American consul in Japan as an American citizen. Petitioner remained in Japan, his father returning to this country. In March, 1941, he entered Meiji University and took a commercial course and military training. In April, 1941, he renewed his United States passport, once more taking the oath of allegiance to the United States. During this period he was registered as an alien with the Japanese police. When war was declared, petitioner was still a student at Meiji University. He became of age in 1942 and completed his schooling in 1943, at which time it was impossible for him to return to the United States. In 1943 he registered in the Koseki, a family census register. Petitioner did not join the Japanese Army nor serve as a soldier. Rather, he obtained employment as an interpreter with the Oeyama Nickel Industry Co., Ltd., where he worked until Japan’s surrender. He was hired to interpret communications between the Japanese and the prisoners of war who were assigned to work at the mine and in the factory of this company. The treasonable acts for which he was convicted involved his conduct toward American prisoners of war.
In December, 1945, petitioner went to the United States consul at Yokohama and applied for registration as an American citizen. He stated under oath that he was a United States citizen and had not done various acts amounting to expatriation. He was issued a passport and returned to the United States in 1946. Shortly thereafter he was recognized by a former American prisoner of war, whereupon he was arrested, and indicted, and tried for treason.
Petitioner defended at his trial on the ground that he had renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship and was expatriated. Congress has provided by § 401 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, 1168, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 801, that a national of the United States may lose his nationality in certain prescribed ways. It provides in relevant part,
“A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
“(a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state...; or
“(b) Taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; or
“(c) Entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state unless expressly authorized by the laws of the United States, if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
“(d) Accepting, or performing the duties of, any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof for which only nationals of such state are eligible
The court charged that if the jury found that petitioner had lost his American citizenship prior to or during the period specified in the indictment, they must acquit him even if he did commit the overt acts charged in the indictment, since his duty of allegiance would have ceased with the termination of his American citizenship. The court further charged that if the jury should find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the period in question petitioner was an American citizen, he owed the United States the same duty of allegiance as any other citizen. The court also charged that even though the jury found that petitioner was an American citizen during the period in question, they must acquit him if at the time of the overt acts petitioner honestly believed he was no longer a citizen of the United States, for then he could not have committed the overt acts with treasonable intent. The special verdicts of the jury contain, with respect to each overt act as to which petitioner was found guilty, an affirmative answer to an interrogatory that he was at that time “an American citizen owing allegiance to the United States, as charged in the indictment.”
Petitioner asks us to hold as a matter of law that he had expatriated himself by his acts and conduct beginning in 1943. He places special emphasis on the entry of his name in the Koseki. Prior to that time he had been registered by the police as an alien. There is evidence that after that time he was considered by Japanese authorities as a Japanese and that he took action which might give rise to the inference that he had elected the Japanese nationality: he took a copy of the Koseki to the police station and had his name removed as an alien; he changed his registration at the University from American to Japanese and his address from California to Japan; he used the Koseki entry to get a job at the Oeyama camp; he went to China on a Japanese passport (see United States v. Husband, 6 F. 2d 957, 958); he accepted labor draft papers from the Japanese government; he faced the east each morning and paid his respects to the Emperor.
The difficulty with petitioner’s position is that the implications from the acts, which he admittedly performed, are ambiguous. He had a dual nationality, a status long recognized in the law. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325, 344-349. The concept of dual citizenship recognizes that a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact that he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other. In this setting petitioner’s registration in the Koseki might reasonably be taken to mean no more than an assertion of some of the rights which his dual citizenship bestowed on him. The deposition of the Attorney General of Japan states that the entry of a person’s name in the Koseki is taken to mean that one has Japanese nationality. But since petitioner already had Japanese nationality, he obviously did not acquire it by the act of registration. The Attorney General of Japan further deposed that all Japanese nationals, whether or not born abroad, are duty bound to Japanese allegiance and that registering in the Koseki is “not necessarily a formal declaration of allegiance but merely a reaffirmation of an allegiance to Japan which already exists.” From this it would appear that the registration may have been nothing more than the disclosure of a fact theretofore not made public.
Conceivably it might have greater consequences. In other settings it might be the equivalent of “naturalization” within the meaning of § 401 (a) of the Act or the making of “an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance” to Japan within the meaning of §401 (b). Certainly it was relevant to the issue of expatriation. But we cannot say as a matter of law that it was a renunciation of petitioner’s American citizenship. What followed might reasonably be construed to mean no more than recognition of the Japanese citizenship which petitioner had acquired on birth- — nationality that was publicly disclosed for the first time in Japan by his registration in the Koseki. Cf. 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law (1942), p. 373. The changing of his registration at the police station and at the University, so as to conform those records to the public record of his Japanese nationality, might reasonably mean no more than announcing the fact of his Japanese nationality to the interested authorities.
As we have said, dual citizenship presupposes rights of citizenship in each country. It could not exist if the assertion of rights or the assumption of liabilities of one were deemed inconsistent with the maintenance of the other. For example, when one has a dual citizenship, it is not necessarily inconsistent with his citizenship in one nation to use a passport proclaiming his citizenship in the other. See 3 Hackworth, supra, p. 353. Hence the use by petitioner of a Japanese passport on his trip to China, his use of the Koseki entry to obtain work at the Oeyama camp, the bowing to the Emperor, and his acceptance of labor draft papers from the Japanese government might reasonably mean no more than acceptance of some of the incidents of Japanese citizenship made possible by his dual citizenship.
Those acts, to be sure, were colored by various other acts and statements of petitioner. He testified for example that he felt no loyalty to the United States from about March, 1943, to late 1945. There was evidence that he boasted that Japan was winning and would win the war, that he taunted American prisoners of war with General MacArthur’s departure from the Philippines, that he expressed his hatred toward things American and toward the prisoners as Americans. That was in 1943 and 1944. This attitude continued into 1945, although in May or June, 1945, shortly before Japan’s surrender, he was saying he did not care “which way the war goes because I am going back to the States anyway.”
On December 31, 1945, he applied for registration as an American citizen, and in that connection he made an affidavit in which he stated that he had been “temporarily residing” in Japan since August 10, 1939; that he came to Japan to study Japanese; that he possessed dual nationality from birth but that his name was not entered in the census register until March 8, 1943; and that he had “never been naturalized, taken an oath of allegiance, or voted as a foreign citizen or subject, or in any way held myself out as such.”
The United States foreign service officer concluded that petitioner had overcome the presumption of expatriation. He reported, “In 1943 his possession of Japanese nationality was made a matter of record by the entry of his name into his uncle’s Family Census Register. He states that this action was taken under severe pressure by the Japanese police and by his uncle, on whom he was financially dependent after his supply of funds from the U. S. was cut off; this office has reason to believe this statement.” These representations led to the issuance of an American passport on which he returned to the United States in 1946.
If petitioner were to be believed in December, 1945, he never once renounced his American citizenship. If what petitioner now says were his thoughts, attitudes, and motives in 1943 and 1944 and in part of 1945, he did intend to renounce his American citizenship. If the latter version were believed by the jury, the signing of the family register, and the changing of his registration at the police station and at the University would assume different significance; those acts might then readily suggest the making of a declaration of allegiance to Japan within the meaning of § 401 (b). If, on the other hand, petitioner were to be believed when in 1945 he stated he had not done acts by which he renounced his American citizenship, then the Koseki incident and the changes in his police and University registration could reasonably be taken as amounting to no more than a public declaration of an established and preexisting fact, viz. his Japanese nationality. We think, in other words, that the question whether petitioner had renounced his American citizenship was on this record peculiarly for the jury to determine. The charge was that the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that during the period specified in the indictment, petitioner was an American citizen. We cannot say there was insufficient evidence for that finding.
Petitioner concedes he did not enter the armed services of Japan within the meaning of § 401 (c) of the Act but claims that during his tour of duty at the Oeyama camp he was “serving in” the Japanese armed services within the statutory meaning of those words. In this connection he also argues that his work in the Oeyama camp was the performance of the duties of an “office, post, or employment under the government” of Japan “for which only nationals of such state are eligible” within the meaning of § 401 (d) of the Act.
The Oeyama Nickel Industry Co., Ltd., was a private company, organized for profit. It was engaged in producing metals used for war under contracts with the Japanese government. In 1944 it was designated by the Japanese government as a munitions corporation and under Japanese law civilian employees were not allowed to change or quit their employment without the consent of the government. The company’s mine and factory were manned in part by prisoners of war. They lived in a camp controlled by the Japanese army. Though petitioner took orders from the military, he was not a soldier in the armed services; he wore insignia on his uniform distinguishing him as nonmilitary personnel; he had no duties to perform in relation to the prisoners, except those of an interpreter. His employment was as an interpreter for the Oeyama Nickel Industry Co., Ltd., a private company. The regulation of the company by the Japanese government, the freezing of its labor force, the assignment to it of prisoners of war under military-command were incidents of a war economy. But we find no indication that the Oeyama Company was nationalized or its properties seized and operated by the government. The evidence indicates that it was a part of a regimented industry; but it was an organization operating for private profit under private management. We cannot say that petitioner's status as an employee of a private company was changed by that regimentation of the industry.
It would require a broad and loose construction of “office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state" as those words are used in § 401 (d) to hold that petitioner had sacrificed his American citizenship by accepting or performing the duties of interpreter. We are thinking not only of this case but of other cases to which § 401 (d) is applicable. We are reluctant to resolve the ambiguity contained in § 401 (d) so as to provide treacherous ground for the loss of the rights of citizenship by the Nisei. As the Court said in Perkins v. Elg, supra, p. 337, “Rights of citizenship are not to be destroyed by an ambiguity.” It would be harsh indeed to* hold that a Nisei, marooned in Japan when World War II broke out, would be expatriated merely by working for a private company whose business was supervised and whose labor supply was controlled by the Japanese government in time of war. That would give § 401 (d) a broad, pervasive sweep. Section 401 (d) not only makes acceptance of “any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state” the basis of expatriation; it also makes “performing the duties” of any such office, post, or employment a ground for expatriation. One who was drafted for such service would be included, as well as one who volunteered. In time of war that would bring most employees of private companies within the danger zone in view of the hold which a war economy places on industry and the supervision and control which it asserts. We therefore incline to a construction of the words “under the government of a foreign state” to mean the relationship that public employees have with their government or with the bureaus or corporations which are government owned and controlled. Support for that narrower meaning is found in the legislative history.
Section 402 creates a presumption that a national in Kawakita’s category who remains six months or longer within a foreign state of which he or either of his parents shall have been a national shall be presumed to have expatriated himself under § 401 (c) or (d). Section 402 does not enlarge § 401 (c) or (d); it creates a rebuttable presumption of expatriation; and when it is shown that the citizen did no act which brought him under § 401 (c) or (d), the presumption is overcome. On that showing the person never loses his American nationality. See Dos Reis v. Nicolls, 161 F. 2d 860, 868. In other words, once it was shown that petitioner was not expatriated under § 401 (c) or (d), the force of § 402 was spent.
Section 408 provides, “The loss of nationality under this Act shall result solely from the performance by a national of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in this Act.” The District Court therefore charged the jury that the only methods of expatriation are those contained in § 401. Petitioner claims that charge was error. He argues that § 408 is applicable only to the loss of nationality “under this Act” and that there are other methods of losing it. He refers to R. S. § 1999, 8 U. S. C. § 800, which survived the Nationality Act of 1940 and is not part of it, and which proclaims the right of expatriation as “a natural and inherent right of all people.” We do not undertake to resolve the question for the reason that it is not squarely presented. On this issue of expatriation, petitioner tenders no question of fact which was inadmissible under § 401. Petitioner merely says that “by his conduct” he had “expatriated himself from United States citizenship.” But he has failed to show that that issue is narrower than or different from the issue presented on this record under § 401 (b) — the declaration of allegiance to Japan. As we have indicated, the major factual problem on the issue of expatriation revolved around the entry of petitioner’s name in the Koseki. All of the other conduct referred to, including the paying of respects to the Emperor and the expressions of hostility to the United States, were relevant and admissible on that issue. If it could not in the eyes of the jury make the signing of the Koseki and the changes in the registration that followed that event tantamount to renunciation under § 401 (b), it hardly could do so standing alone. Hence, if there was error in the charge, it was harmless.
That conclusion is reinforced by another aspect of the case. Petitioner testified that he believed when he signed the Koseki that he lost his American citizenship. He testified that during the period charged in the indictment he believed that he was no longer an American citizen. The District Court charged that if the jury found (1) defendant had committed any overt act charged in the indictment and (2) he was an American citizen, yet they should not convict if they further found that at the time “the defendant honestly believed that he was no longer a citizen of the United States” since in that event he could not have committed the act with treasonable intent. Under this charge the belief of petitioner that he had renounced his American citizenship was sufficient to acquit if the jury believed him. His belief could not have been made more relevant to the issue of guilt if it had been admitted as proof of expatriation separate and apart from the other grounds specified in § 401 of the Act. Hence even if we assume, arguendo, that the court was wrong in charging that § 408 made the grounds specified in § 401 exclusive, the error was harmless.
Second. Petitioner contends that a person who has a dual nationality can be guilty of treason only to the country where he resides, not to the other country which claims him as a national. More specifically, he maintains that while petitioner resided in Japan he owed his paramount allegiance to that country and was indeed, in the eyes of our law, an alien enemy.
The argument in its broadest reach is that treason against the United States cannot be committed abroad or in enemy territory, at least by an American with a dual nationality residing in the other country which claims him as a national. The definition of treason, however, contained in the Constitution contains no territorial limitation. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort....” Art. Ill, § 3. A substitute proposal containing some territorial limitations was rejected by the Constitutional Convention. See 2 Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention, pp. 347-348. The Act of April 30, 1790, 1 Stat. 112, which was passed by the first Congress defining the crime of treason likewise contained no territorial limitation; and that legislation is contained in substantially the same form in the present statute. 18 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 2381. We must therefore reject the suggestion that an American citizen living beyond the territorial limits of the United States may not commit treason against them. See Chandler v. United States, 171 F. 2d 921, 929-930; Burgman v. United States, 88 U. S. App. D. C. 184, 185, 188 F. 2d 637, 640.
One who has a dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which at times may be competing or conflicting. The nature of those claims has recently been stated as follows:
“A person with dual nationality may be subjected to taxes by both states of which he is a national. He is not entitled to protection by one of the two states of which he is a national while in the territorial jurisdiction of the other. Either state not at war with the other may insist on military service when the person is present within its territory. In time of war if he supports neither belligerent, both may be aggrieved. If he supports one belligerent, the other may be aggrieved. One state may be suspicious of his loyalty to it and subject him to the disabilities of an enemy alien, including sequestration of his property, while the other holds his conduct treasonable.” Orfield, The Legal Effects of Dual Nationality, 17 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 427, 429.
Dual nationality, however, is the unavoidable consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries. See 3 Hackworth, supra, pp. 352 et seq. One who becomes a citizen of this country by reason of birth retains it, even though by the law of another country he is also a citizen of it. He can under certain circumstances be deprived of his American citizenship through the operation of a treaty or an act of Congress; he can also lose it by voluntary action. See Perkins v. Elg, supra, p. 329. But American citizenship, until lost, carries obligations of allegiance as well as privileges and benefits. For one who has a dual status the obligations of American citizenship may at times be difficult to discharge. An American who has a dual nationality may find himself in a foreign country when it wages war on us. The very fact that he must make a livelihood there may indirectly help the enemy nation. In these days of total war manpower becomes critical and everyone who can be placed in a productive position increases the strength of the enemy to wage war. Of course, a person caught in that predicament can resolve the conflict of duty by openly electing one nationality or the other and becoming either an alien enemy of the country where he resides or a national of it alone. Yet, so far as the existing law of this country is concerned, he need not make that choice but can continue his dual citizenship. It has been stated in an administrative ruling of the State Department that a person with a dual citizenship who lives abroad in the other country claiming him as a national owes an allegiance to it which is paramount to the allegiance he owes the United States. That is a far cry from a ruling that a citizen in that position owes no allegiance to the United States. Of course, an American citizen who is also a Japanese national living in Japan has obligations to Japan necessitated by his residence there. There might conceivably be cases where the mere nonperformance of the acts complained of would be a breach of Japanese law. He may have employment which requires him to perform certain acts. The compulsion may come from the fact that he is drafted for the job or that his conduct is demanded by the laws of Japan. He may be coerced by his employer or supervisor or by the force of circumstances to do things which he has no desire or heart to do. That was one of petitioner’s defenses in this case. Such acts — if done voluntarily and willfully— might be treasonable. But if done under the compulsion of the job or the law or some other influence, those acts would not rise to the gravity of that offense. The trial judge recognized the distinction in his charge when he instructed the jury to acquit petitioner if he did not do the acts willingly or voluntarily “but so acted only because performance of the duties of his employment required him to do so or because of other coercion or compulsion.” In short, petitioner was held accountable by the jury only for performing acts of hostility toward this country which he was not required by Japan to perform.
If he can retain that freedom and still remain an American citizen, there is not even a minimum of allegiance which he owes to the United States while he resides in the enemy country. That conclusion is hostile to the concept of citizenship as we know it, and it must be rejected. One who wants that freedom can get it by renouncing his American citizenship. He cannot turn it into a fair-weather citizenship, retaining it for possible contingent benefits but meanwhile playing the part of the traitor. An American citizen owes allegiance to the United States wherever he may reside.
Circumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship. An American with a dual nationality who is charged with playing the role of the traitor may defend by showing that force or coercion compelled such conduct. The jury rejected that version of the facts which petitioner tendered. He is therefore forced to maintain that, being a national and a resident of Japan, he owed no allegiance to the United States even though he was an American citizen. That proposition we reject.
Third. Article III, § 3 of the Constitution provides, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
So far as material here, the crime thus consists of two elements — adhering to the enemy; and giving him aid and comfort. See Cramer v. United States, 325 U. S. 1, 29. One may think disloyal thoughts and have his heart on the side of the enemy. Yet if he commits no act giving aid and comfort to..the enemy, he is not guilty of treason. He may on the other hand commit acts which do give aid and comfort to the enemy and yet not be guilty of treason, as for example where he acts impulsively with no intent to betray. Two witnesses are required not to the disloyal and treacherous intention but to the same overt act. See Cramer v. United States, supra, pp. 30, 31.
The jury found petitioner guilty of eight overt acts. One overt act alone, properly proved, would be sufficient to sustain the conviction, all other elements of the crime of treason being established. Since the jury returned special verdicts and findings as to each of the eight overt acts, we could not upset the judgment of conviction, unless all eight were insufficient. See Haupt v. United States, 330 U. S. 631, 641. We conclude, however, that each of the eight overt acts was properly proved.
Each of these related to his treatment of American prisoners of war at the Oeyama camp. These prisoners were mostly from Bataan and were in weakened condition on their arrival. All were below normal weight; many of them were suffering from disease; most of them were unfit for work. They were assigned to work either in the factory or at the mine of the Oeyama Company. They were under the supervision of the Japanese army. Petitioner was a civilian interpreter, as we have said. There was evidence that he had no authority and no duties, as respects the prisoners, except as an interpreter. Yet the record shows a long, persistent, and continuous course of conduct directed against the American prisoners and going beyond any conceivable duty of an interpreter.
After the American prisoners arrived, the Japanese authorities raised the quota of ore which they were expected to produce each day. The quota had been between 120 and 165 carloads a day; now it was increased to 200. A part of petitioner’s conduct was swearing at the prisoners, beating them, threatening them, and punishing them for not working faster and harder, for failing to fill their quotas, for resting, and for slowing down.
There were two overts acts in this category. Overt act (a) as alleged in the indictment and developed at the trial was that in May, 1945, petitioner kicked a prisoner named Toland who was ill, because he slowed down in lifting pieces of ore rocks from the tracks at the factory to keep the tracks clear. Toland had suffered a dizzy spell and slowed down. Petitioner told him to get to work and thereupon kicked him, causing him to fall flat and to cut his face and hand. Another prisoner wanted to pick Toland up; but petitioner would not let him. Overt act (j) as alleged in the indictment and developed at the trial was that in May, 1945, petitioner struck a prisoner named Armellino, who was weak and emaciated, in order to make him carry more lead. Armel-lino had been carrying only one bucket of lead. Petitioner thereupon struck him, causing him to fall. When he got up, petitioner forced him to carry two buckets, pushing him along.
Each of these acts was aimed at getting more work out of the prisoners — work that produced munitions of war for the enemy, or so the jury might have concluded. The increased efforts charged in overt acts (a) and (j) were small; the contribution to the war effort of the enemy certainly was minor, not crucial. Harboring the spy in Haupt v. United States, supra, was also insignificant in the total war effort of Germany during the recent war. Yet it was a treasonable act. It is the nature of the act that is important. The act may be unnecessary to a successful completion of the enemy’s project; it may be an abortive attempt; it may in the sum total of the enemy’s effort be a casual and unimportant step. But if it gives aid and comfort to the enemy at the immediate moment of its performance, it qualifies as an overt act within the constitutional standard of treason. As Chief Justice Marshall said in Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 126, “If war be actually levied,... all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.” These two overt acts, if designed to speed up Japan’s war production, plainly gave aid and comfort to the enemy in the constitutional sense.
The other overt acts were acts of cruelty to American prisoners of war.
Overt act (b) as alleged in the indictment and developed at the trial was that one Grant, an American prisoner, had been seen by a Japanese sentry coming out of the Red Cross storeroom with a package of cigarettes. He was thereupon thrown into a cesspool by a Japanese sergeant, ordered out, and knocked back repeatedly. While Grant was in the cesspool, petitioner hit him over the head with a wooden pole or sword, told him to squat down, and tried to force him to sit in the water. When Grant was taken from the pool, he was blue, his teeth were chattering, and he could not straighten up.
Overt act (c) as alleged in the indictment and developed at the trial was that in December, 1944, petitioner and Japanese guards lined up about 30 American prisoners and, as punishment for making articles of clothing out of blankets, struck them and forced them to strike each other. Petitioner hit prisoners who, he thought, did not hit each other hard enough.
Overt act (d) as alleged in the indictment and developed at the trial was that petitioner imposed cruelty on O’Connor, an American prisoner, who was sick and had stolen Red Cross supplies. He was knocked into the cesspool by Japanese soldiers and then repeatedly hit and thrown back into the pool by them and by petitioner, with the result that O’Connor temporarily lost his reason.
Overt act (g) as alleged in the indictment and developed at the trial was that in July or August, 1945, a Japanese sergeant compelled a work detail of American prisoners, who had returned early, to run around a quadrangle. Petitioner forced two of the Americans, who were unable to run fast because of illness, to run the course an additional four and six times respectively. Petitioner threw pebbles and sod at them to make them run faster.
Overt act (i) as alleged in the indictment and developed at the trial was that in December, 1944, petitioner ordered one Carter, an American prisoner of war, to carry a heavy log up an ice-covered slope at the mine. When Carter slipped, fell, and was injured, petitioner although he knew Carter was badly hurt and needed attention delayed his removal back to camp for approximately five hours.
Overt act (k) as alleged in the indictment and developed at the trial was that in the spring or summer of 1945 petitioner participated in the inhuman punishment of one Shaffer, an American prisoner of war. Shaffer was forced to kneel on bamboo sticks on a platform with a bamboo stick inside the joints of his knees, and to keep his arms above his head holding a bucket of water and later a log. When Shaffer became tired and bent his elbows, petitioner would strike him. When Shaffer leaned over and spilled some water, petitioner would take the bucket, throw the water on Shaffer, and have the bucket refilled. Then Shaffer was required to hold up a log. It fell on him, causing a gash. After the wound was treated, petitioner placed bamboo sticks on the ground and once more made Shaffer kneel on them and go through the same performance.
As we have said, petitioner was not required by his employment to inflict punishment on the prisoners. His duties regarding the prisoners related solely to the role of interpreter. His acts of cruelty toward the prisoners were over and beyond the call of duty of his job, or so the jury might have found. We cannot say as a matter of law that petitioner did these acts under compulsion. He seeks, however, to find protection under Japanese municipal law. It is difficult to see how that argument helps petitioner. The source of the law of treason is the Constitution. If an American citizen is a traitor by the constitutional definition, he gains no immunity because the same acts may have been unlawful under the law of the country where the acts were performed. Treason is a separate offense; treason can be committed by one who scrupulously observes the laws of other nations; and his acts may be nonetheless treasonable though the same conduct amounts to a different crime. It would take a long chapter to relate the numerous acts that supplement the crime of treason and build different and lesser crimes out of the same or related acts. See Cramer v. United States, supra, p. 45. But no matter the reach of the legislative power in defining other crimes, the constitutional requirements for treason remain the same. The crime of treason can be taken out of the Constitution by the processes of amendment; but there is no other way to modify or alter it.
The jury found that each of the six overt acts of cruelty actually gave aid and comfort to the enemy. We agree. These were not acts innocent and commonplace in appearance and gaining treasonable
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Periodically from 1993 until 2000, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) authorized flooding that extended into the peak growing season for timber on forest land owned and managed by petitioner, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (Commission). Cumulative in effect, the repeated flooding damaged or destroyed more than 18 million board feet of timber and disrupted the ordinary use and enjoyment of the Commission’s property. The Commission sought compensation from the United States pursuant to the Fifth Amendment’s instruction: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The question presented is whether a taking may occur, within the meaning of the Takings Clause, when government-induced flood invasions, although repetitive, are temporary.
Ordinarily, this Court’s decisions confirm, if government action would qualify as a taking when permanently continued, temporary actions of the same character may also qualify as a taking. In the instant case, the parties and the courts below divided on the appropriate classification of temporary flooding. Reversing the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which awarded compensation to the Commission, the Federal Circuit held, 2 to 1, that compensation may be sought only when flooding is “a permanent or inevitably recurring condition, rather than an inherently temporary situation.” 637 F. 3d 1366, 1378 (2011). We disagree and conclude that recurrent floodings, even if of finite duration, are not categorically exempt from Takings Clause liability.
I
A
The Commission owns the Dave Donaldson Black River Wildlife Management Area (Management Area or Area), which comprises 23,000 acres along both banks of the Black River in northeast Arkansas. The Management Area is forested with multiple hardwood timber species that support a variety of wildlife habitats. The Commission operates the Management Area as a wildlife and hunting preserve, and also uses it as a timber resource, conducting regular harvests of timber as part of its forest-management efforts. Three types of hardwood oak species—nuttall, overcup, and willow—account for 80 percent of the trees in the Management Area. The presence of these hardwood oaks is essential to the Area’s character as a habitat for migratory birds and as a venue for recreation and hunting.
The Clearwater Dam (Dam) is located 115 miles upstream from the Management Area. The Corps constructed the Dam in 1948, and shortly thereafter adopted a plan known as the Water Control Manual (Manual) to determine the rates at which water would be released from the Dam. The Manual sets seasonally varying release rates, but permits planned deviations from the prescribed rates for agricultural, recreational, and other purposes.
In 1993, the Corps approved a planned deviation in response to requests from farmers. From September to December 1993, the Corps released water from the Dam at a slower rate than usual, providing downstream farmers with a longer harvest time. As a result, more water than usual accumulated in Clearwater Lake behind the Dam. To reduce the accumulation, the Corps extended the period in which a high amount of water would be released. The Commission maintained this extension yielded downstream flooding in the Management Area, above historical norms, during the tree-growing season, which runs from April to October. If the Corps had released the water more rapidly in the fall of 1993, in accordance with the Manual and with past practice, there would have been short-term waves of flooding which would have receded quickly. The lower rate of release in the fall, however, extended the period of flooding well into the following spring and summer. While the deviation benefited farmers, it interfered with the Management Area’s tree-growing season.
The Corps adopted similar deviations each year from 1994 through 2000. The record indicates that the decision to deviate from the Manual was made independently in each year and that the amount of deviation varied over the span of years. Nevertheless, the result was an unbroken string of annual deviations from the Manual. Each deviation lowered the rate at which water was released during the fall, which necessitated extension of the release period into the following spring and summer. During this span of years the Corps proposed Manual revisions that would have made its temporary deviations part of the permanent water-release plan. On multiple occasions between 1993 and 2000, the Commission objected to the temporary deviations and opposed any permanent revision to the Manual, on the ground that the departures from the traditional water-release plan adversely impacted the Management Area. Ultimately, the Corps tested the effect of the deviations on the Management Area. It thereupon abandoned the proposal to permanently revise the Manual and, in 2001, ceased its temporary deviations.
B
In 2005, the Commission filed the instant lawsuit against the United States, claiming that the temporary deviations from the Manual constituted a taking of property that entitled the Commission to compensation. The Commission maintained that the deviations caused sustained flooding of its land during the tree-growing season. The cumulative impact of this flooding over a six-year period between 1993 and 1999, the Commission alleged, resulted in the destruction of timber in the Management Area and a substantial change in the character of the terrain, which necessitated costly reclamation measures. Following a trial, the Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the Commission and issued an opinion and order containing detailed findings of fact. 87 Fed. Cl. 594 (2009).
The Court of Federal Claims found that the forests in the Management Area were healthy and flourishing before the flooding that occurred in the 1990⅛, and that the forests had been sustainably managed for decades under the water-release plan contained in the Manual. Id., at 631. It further found that the Commission repeatedly objected to the deviations from the Manual and alerted the Corps to the detrimental effect the longer period of flooding would have on the hardwood timber in the Management Area. Id., at 604.
As found by the Court of Federal Claims, the flooding caused by the deviations contrasted markedly with historical flooding patterns. Between 1949 and 1992, the river level near the Management Area reached six feet an average of 64.7 days per year during the growing season; the number of such days had been even lower on average before the Clearwater Dam was built. Between 1993 and 1999, however, the river reached the same level an average of 91.14 days per year, an increase of more than 40 percent over the historic average. Although the Management Area lies in a flood plain, in no previously recorded timespan did comparable flooding patterns occur. Id., at 607-608. Evidence at trial indicated that half of the nuttall oaks in the Management Area were saturated with water when the river level was at six feet, id., at 608; the evidence further indicated that the saturation of the soil around the trees’ root systems could persist for weeks even after the flooding had receded, id., at 627.
The court concluded that the Corps’ deviations caused six consecutive years of substantially increased flooding, which constituted an appropriation of the Commission’s property, albeit a temporary rather than a permanent one. Important to this conclusion, the court emphasized the deviations’ cumulative effect. The trees were subject to prolonged periods of flooding year after year, which reduced the oxygen level in the soil and considerably weakened the trees’ root systems. The repeated annual flooding for six years altered the character of the property to a much greater extent than would have been shown if the harm caused by one year of flooding were simply multiplied by six. When a moderate drought occurred in 1999 and 2000, the trees did not have the root systems necessary to sustain themselves; the result, in the court’s words, was “catastrophic mortality.” Id., at 632. More than 18 million board feet of timber were destroyed or degraded. Id., at 638-640.
This damage altered the character of the Management Area. The destruction of the trees led to the invasion of undesirable plant species, making natural regeneration of the forests improbable in the absence of reclamation efforts. Id., at 643. To determine the measure of just compensation, the Court of Federal Claims calculated the value of the lost timber and the projected cost of the reclamation and awarded the Commission $5.7 million.
The Federal Circuit reversed. It acknowledged that in general, temporary government action may give rise to a takings claim if permanent action of the same character would constitute a taking. But it held that “cases involving flooding and [flowage] easements are different.” 637 F. 3d, at 1374. Government-induced flooding can give rise to a takings claim, the Federal Circuit concluded, only if the flooding is “permanent or inevitably recurring.” Id., at 1378. The Court of Appeals understood this conclusion to be dictated by this Court’s decisions in Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U. S. 146, 150 (1924), and United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316, 328 (1917). We granted certiorari to resolve the question whether government actions that cause repeated floodings must be permanent or inevitably recurring to constitute a taking of property. 566 U. S. 920 (2012).
I—t H-i
The Takings Clause is “designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960). See also First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U. S. 304, 318-319 (1987); Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 123-125 (1978). And “[w]hen the government physically takes possession of an interest in property for some public purpose, it has a categorical duty to compensate the former owner.” Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 322 (2002) (citing United States v. Pewee Coal Co., 341 U. S. 114, 115 (1951)). These guides are fundamental in our Takings Clause jurisprudence. We have recognized, however, that no magic formula enables a court to judge, in every case, whether a given government interference with property is a taking. In view of the nearly infinite variety of ways in which government actions or regulations can affect property interests, the Court has recognized few invariable rules in this area.
True, we have drawn some bright lines, notably, the rule that a permanent physical occupation of property authorized by government is a taking. Loretto v. Teleprompter Man hattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 426 (1982). So, too, is a regulation that permanently requires a property owner to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses of his or her land. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1019 (1992). But aside from the cases attended by rules of this order, most takings claims turn on situation-specific factual inquiries. See Penn Central, 438 U. S., at 124. With this in mind, we turn to the question presented here—whether temporary flooding can ever give rise to a takings claim.
The Court first ruled that government-induced flooding can constitute a taking in Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166 (1872). The Wisconsin Legislature had authorized the defendant to build a dam which led to the creation of a lake, permanently submerging the plaintiff’s land. The defendant argued that the land had not been taken because the government did not exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire title to the affected property. Moreover, the defendant urged, the damage was merely “a consequential result” of the dam’s construction near the plaintiff’s property. Id., at 177. Rejecting that crabbed reading of the Takings Clause, the Court held that “where real estate is actually invaded by superinduced additions of water, earth, sand, or other material ... so as to effectually destroy or impair its usefulness, it is a taking, within the meaning of the Constitution.” Id., at 181.
Following Pumpelly, the Court recognized that seasonally recurring flooding could constitute a taking. United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316 (1917), involved the Government’s construction of a lock and dam, which subjected the plaintiff’s land to “intermittent but inevitably recurring overflows.” Id., at 328. The Court held that the regularly recurring flooding gave rise to a takings claim no less valid than the claim of an owner whose land was continuously kept under water. Id., at 328-329.
Furthermore, our decisions confirm that takings temporary in duration can be compensable. This principle was solidly established in the World War II era, when “[cjondem-nation for indefinite periods of occupancy [took hold as] a practical response to the uncertainties of the Government’s needs in wartime.” United States v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 339 U. S. 261, 267 (1950). In support of the war effort, the Government took temporary possession of many properties. These exercises of government authority, the Court recognized, qualified as compensable temporary takings. See Pewee Coal Co., 341 U. S. 114; Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U. S. 1 (1949); United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373 (1945). Notably in relation to the question before us, the takings claims approved in these cases were not confined to instances in which the Government took outright physical possession of the property involved. A temporary takings claim could be maintained as well when government action occurring outside the property gave rise to “a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land.” United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256, 266 (1946) (frequent overflights from a nearby airport resulted in a taking, for the flights deprived the property owner of the customary use of his property as a chicken farm); cf. United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745, 751 (1947) (flooding of claimant’s land was a taking even though claimant successfully “reclaimed most of his land which the Government originally took by flooding”).
Ever since, we have rejected the argument that government action must be permanent to qualify as a taking. Once the government’s actions have worked a taking of property, “no subsequent action by the government can relieve it of the duty to provide compensation for the period during which the taking was effective.” First English, 482 U. S., at 321. See also Tahoe-Sierra, 535 U. S., at 337 (“[W]e do not hold that the temporary nature of a land-use restriction precludes finding that it effects a taking; we simply recognize that it should not be given exclusive significance one way or the other.”).
Because government-induced flooding can constitute a taking of property, and because a taking need not be permanent to be compensable, our precedent indicates that government-induced flooding of limited duration may be compensable. No decision of this Court authorizes a blanket temporary-flooding exception to our Takings Clause jurisprudence, and we decline to create such an exception in this case.
HH í—I
In advocating a temporary-flooding exception, the Government relies primarily on Sanguinetti, 264 U. S. 146. That case involved a canal constructed by the Government connecting a slough and a river. The claimant’s land was positioned between the slough and the river above the canal. The year after the canal’s construction, a “flood of unprecedented severity” caused the canal to overflow onto the claimant’s land; less severe flooding and overflow occurred in later years. Id., at 147.
The Court held there was no taking on these facts. This outcome rested on settled principles of foreseeability and causation. The Court emphasized that the Government did not intend to flood the land or have “any reason to expect that such [a] result would follow” from construction of the canal. Id., at 148. Moreover, the property was subject to seasonal flooding prior to the construction of the canal, and the landowner failed to show a causal connection between the canal and the increased flooding, which may well have been occasioned by changes in weather patterns. See id., at 149 (characterizing the causal relationship asserted by the landowner as “purely conjectural”). These case-specific features were more than sufficient to dispose of the property owner’s claim.
In the course of the Sanguinetti decision, however, the Court summarized prior flooding cases as standing for the proposition that “in order to create an enforceable liability against the Government, it is, at least, necessary that the overflow be the direct result of the structure, and constitute an actual, permanent invasion of the land.” Ibid. The Government would have us extract from this statement a definitive rule that there can be no temporary taking caused by floods.
We do not read so much into the word “permanent” as it appears in a nondispositive sentence in Sanguinetti. That case, we note, was decided in 1924, well before the World War II-era cases and First English, in which the Court first homed in on the matter of compensation for temporary takings. That time factor, we think, renders understandable the Court’s passing reference to permanence. If the Court indeed meant to express a general limitation on the Takings Clause, that limitation has been superseded by subsequent developments in our jurisprudence.
There is certainly no suggestion in Sanguinetti that flooding cases should be set apart from the mine run of takings claims. The sentence in question was composed to summarize the flooding cases the Court had encountered up to that point, which had unexceptionally involved permanent, rather than temporary, government-induced flooding. 264 U. S., at 149. See Cress, 243 U. S., at 328; United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445, 469 (1903). But as just explained, no distinction between permanent and temporary flooding was material to the result in Sanguinetti. We resist reading a single sentence unnecessary to the decision as having done so much work. In this regard, we recall Chief Justice Marshall’s sage observation that “general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 399 (1821).
The Government also asserts that the Court in Loretto interpreted Sanguinetti the same way the Federal Circuit did in this case. That assertion bears careful inspection. A section of the Court’s opinion in Loretto discussing permanent physical occupations parenthetically quotes Sanguinetti’s statement that flooding is a taking if it constitutes an “actual, permanent invasion of the land.” 458 U. S., at 428 (internal quotation marks omitted). But the first rule of case law as well as statutory interpretation is: Read on. Later in the Loretto opinion, the Court clarified that it scarcely intended to adopt a “flooding-is-different” rule by the obscure means of quoting parenthetically a fragment from a 1924 opinion. The Court distinguished permanent physical occupations from temporary invasions of property, expressly including flooding cases, and said that “temporary limitations are subject to a more complex balancing process to determine whether they are a taking.” Id., at 435, n. 12.
There is thus no solid grounding in precedent for setting flooding apart from all other government intrusions on property. And the Government has presented no other persuasive reason to do so. Its primary argument is of the in for a penny, in for a pound genre: reversing the decision below, the Government worries, risks disruption of public works dedicated to flood control. “[E]very passing flood attributable to the government’s operation of a flood-control project, no matter how brief,” the Government hypothesizes, might qualify as a compensable taking. Brief for United States 29. To reject a categorical bar to temporary-flooding takings claims, however, is scarcely to credit all, or even many, such claims. It is of course incumbent on courts to weigh carefully the relevant factors and circumstances in each case, as instructed by our decisions. See infra, at 39.
The slippery slope argument, we note, is hardly novel or unique to flooding cases. Time and again in Takings Clause cases, the Court has heard the prophecy that recognizing a just compensation claim would unduly impede the government’s ability to act in the public interest. Causby, 328 U. S., at 275 (Black, J., dissenting); Loretto, 458 U. S., at 455 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). We have rejected this argument when deployed to urge blanket exemptions from the Fifth Amendment’s instruction. While we recognize the importance of the public interests the Government advances in this case, we do not see them ás categorically different from the interests at stake in myriad other Takings Clause cases. The sky did not fall after Causby, and today’s modest decision augurs no deluge of takings liability.
Tellingly, the Government qualifies its defense of the Federal Circuit’s exclusion of flood invasions from temporary tákings analysis. It sensibly acknowledges that a taking might be found where there is a “sufficiently prolonged series of nominally temporary but substantively identical deviations.” Brief for United States 21. This concession is in some tension with the categorical rule adopted by the Court of Appeals. Indeed, once it is recognized that at least some repeated nonpermanent flooding can amount to a taking of property, the question presented to us has been essentially answered. Flooding cases, like other takings cases, should be assessed with reference to the “particular circumstances of each case,” and not by resorting to blanket exclusionary rules. United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U. S. 155, 168 (1958) (citing Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 416 (1922)). See Penn Central, 438 U. S., at 124.
At oral argument, the Government tendered a different justification for the Federal Circuit’s judgment, one not aired in the courts below, and barely hinted at in the brief the Government filed in this Court: Whether the damage is permanent or temporary, damage to downstream property, however foreseeable, is collateral or incidental; it is not aimed at any particular landowner and therefore does not qualify as an occupation compensable under the Takings Clause. Tr. of Oral Arg. 30-39; Brief for United States 26-27. “[M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view,” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005), we express no opinion on the proposed upstream/downstream distinction and confine our opinion to the issue explored and decided by the Federal Circuit.
For the same reason, we are not equipped to address the . bearing, if any, of Arkansas water-rights law on this case. The determination whether a taking has occurred includes consideration of the property owner’s distinct investment-backed expectations, a matter often informed by the law in force in the State in which the property is located. Lucas, 505 U. S., at 1027-1029; Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 164 (1998). But Arkansas law was not examined by the Federal Circuit, and therefore is not properly pursued in this Court. Whether arguments for an upstream/downstream distinction and on the relevance of Arkansas law have been preserved and, if so, whether they have merit, are questions appropriately addressed to the Court of Appeals on remand. See Glover v. United States, 531 U. S. 198, 205 (2001).
IV
We rule today, simply and only, that government-induced flooding temporary in duration gains no automatic exemption from Takings Clause inspection. When regulation or temporary physical invasion by government interferes with private property, our decisions recognize, time is indeed a factor in determining the existence vel non of a compensable taking. See Loretto, 458 U. S., at 435, n. 12 (temporary physical invasions should be assessed by case-specific factual inquiry); Tahoe-Sierra, 535 U. S., at 342 (duration of regulatory restriction is a factor for court to consider); National Bd. of YMCA v. United States, 395 U. S. 85, 93 (1969) (“temporary, unplanned occupation” of building by troops under exigent circumstances is not a taking).
Also relevant to the takings inquiry is the degree to which the invasion is intended or is the foreseeable result of authorized government action. See supra, at 34; John Horstmann Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 138, 146 (1921) (no takings liability when damage caused by government action could not have been foreseen). See also Ridge Line, Inc. v. United States, 346 F. 3d 1346, 1355-1356 (CA Fed. 2003); In re Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R. Co., 799 F. 2d 317, 325-326 (CA7 1986). So, too, are the character of the land at issue and the owner’s “reasonable investment-backed expectations” regarding the land’s use. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U. S. 606, 618 (2001). For example, the Management Area lies in a flood plain below a dam, and had experienced flooding in the past. But the trial court found the Area had not been exposed to flooding comparable to the 1990’s accumulations in any other timespan either prior to or after the construction of the Dam. See supra, at 29-30. Severity of the interference figures in the calculus as well. See Penn Central, 438 U. S., at 130-131; Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 327, 329-330 (1922) (“[WJhile a single act may not be enough, a continuance of them in sufficient number and for a sufficient time may prove [a taking]. Every successive trespass adds to the force of the evidence.”).
The Court of Federal Claims found that the flooding the Commission assails was foreseeable. In this regard, the court noted the Commission’s repeated complaints to the Corps about the destructive impact of the successive planned deviations from the Manual. Further, the court determined that the interference with the Commission’s property was severe: The Commission had been deprived of the customary use of the Management Area as a forest and wildlife preserve, as the bottomland hardwood forest turned, over time, into a “headwater swamp.” 87 Fed. Cl., at 610 (internal quotation marks omitted); see swpra, at 30.
The Government, however, challenged several of the trial court’s factfindings, including those relating to causation, foreseeability, substantiality, and the amount of damages. Because the Federal Circuit rested its decision entirely on the temporary duration of the flooding, it did not address those challenges. As earlier noted, see supra, at 38, preserved issues remain open for consideration on remand.
* ⅜ ⅜
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Arkansas water law is barely discussed in the parties’ briefs, see Brief for United States 43, but has been urged at length in a friend-of-the-Court brief. See Professors of Law Teaching in the Property Law and Water Rights Fields as Amicus Curiae.
The Commission is endeavoring to reclaim the land through a restoration program. The prospect of reclamation, however, does not disqualify a landowner from receipt of just compensation for a taking. United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745, 751 (1947).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 355, 29 U. S. C. § 791 et seq. (Act or Rehabilitation Act), prohibits, among other things, discrimination on the basis of disability “under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency.” 29 U. S. C. § 794(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The question presented in this case is whether Congress has waived the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity against awards of monetary damages for violations of this provision.
I
The United States Merchant Marine Academy is a federal service academy that trains students to serve as commercial merchant marine officers and as commissioned officers in the United States Armed Forces. The Academy is administered by the Maritime Administration, an organization within the Department of Transportation. Petitioner James Griffin Lane entered the Academy as a first-year student in July 1991 after meeting the Academy’s requirements for appointment, including passing a physical examination conducted by the Department of Defense. During his first year at the Academy, however, Lane was diagnosed by a private physician as having diabetes mellitus. Lane reported the diagnosis to the Academy’s Chief Medical Officer. The Academy’s Physical Examination Review Board conducted a hearing in September 1992 to determine Lane’s “medical suitability” to continue at the Academy, following which the Board reported to the Superintendent of the Academy that Lane suffered from insulin-dependent diabetes.
In December 1992, Lane was separated from the Academy on the ground that his diabetes was a “disqualifying condition,” rendering him ineligible to be commissioned for service in the Navy/Merchant Marine Reserve Program or as a Naval Reserve Officer. After unsuccessfully challenging his separation before the Maritime Administrator, Lane brought suit in Federal District Court against the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and other defendants, alleging that his separation from the Academy violated § 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U. S. C. § 794(a). He sought reinstatement to the Academy, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Lane, concluding that his separation from the Academy solely on the basis of his diabetes violated the Act. The court ordered Lane reinstated to the Academy, and the Government did not dispute the propriety of this injunctive relief. The Government did, however, dispute the propriety of a compensatory damages award, claiming that the United States was protected against a damages suit by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The District Court disagreed; it ruled that Lane was entitled to a compensatory damages award against the Government for its violation of § 504(a), but deferred resolution of the specific amount of damages due. 867 F. Supp. 1050 (DC 1994).
Shortly thereafter, however, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in Dorsey v. United States Dept. of Labor, 41 F. 3d 1551 (1994), that the Act did not waive the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity against monetary damages for violations of § 504(a). The court denied compensatory damages based on the absence, in any statutory text, of an “unequivocal expression” of congressional intent to waive the Government’s immunity as to monetary damages, and this Court’s instruction that waivers of sovereign immunity may not be implied, see, e. g., Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 95 (1990).
In light of Dorsey, the District Court vacated its prior order to the extent that it awarded damages to Lane and held that Lane was not entitled to a compensatory damages award against the Federal Government. App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a-6a. Lane appealed. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit first rejected Lane’s request for initial en banc review to reconsider Dorsey, then granted the Government’s motion for summary affirmance. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a. We granted certiorari, 516 U. S. 1036 (1996), to resolve the disagreement in the Courts of Appeals on the important question whether Congress has waived the Federal Government’s immunity against monetary damages awards for violations of § 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act. Compare, e. g., Dorsey, supra, at 1554-1555, with J L. v. Social Security Admin., 971 F. 2d 260 (CA9 1992), and Doe v. Attorney General, 941 F. 2d 780 (CA9 1991).
II
Section 504(a) of the Act provides that
“[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.” 29 U. S. C. § 794(a).
Section 505(a)(2) of the Act describes the remedies available for a violation of § 504(a): “The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistance under [§ 504].” § 794a(a)(2). Because Title VI provides for monetary damages awards, see Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60, 70 (1992) (noting that “a clear majority” of the Court confirmed in Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of New York City, 463 U. S. 582 (1983), that damages are available under Title VI for intentional violations thereof), Lane reads §§ 504(a) and 505(a)(2) together to establish a waiver of the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity against monetary damages awards for violations of § 504(a) committed by Executive agencies.
While Lane’s analysis has superficial appeal, it overlooks one critical requirement firmly grounded in our precedents: A waiver of the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text, see, e. g., United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 33-34, 37 (1992), and will not be implied, Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, supra, at 95. Moreover, a waiver of the Government’s sovereign immunity will be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign. See, e. g., United States v. Williams, 514 U. S. 527, 531 (1995) (when confronted with a purported waiver of the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity, the Court will “constru[e] ambiguities in favor of immunity”); Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U. S. 310, 318 (1986); Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U. S. 156, 161 (1981) (“[Limitations and conditions upon which the Government consents to be sued must be strictly observed and exceptions thereto are not to be implied”). To sustain a claim that the Government is liable for awards of monetary damages, the waiver of sovereign immunity must extend unambiguously to such monetary claims. Nordic Village, 503 U. S., at 34. A statute’s legislative history cannot supply a waiver that does not appear clearly in any statutory text; “the ‘unequivocal expression’ of elimination of sovereign immunity that we insist upon is an expression in statutory text.” Id., at 37.
The clarity of expression necessary to establish a waiver of the Government’s sovereign immunity against monetary damages for violations of § 504 is lacking in the text of the relevant provisions. The language of § 505(a)(2), the remedies provision, is telling. In that section, Congress decreed that the remedies available for violations of Title VI would be similarly available for violations of § 504(a) “by any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistance.” 29 U. S. C. § 794a(a)(2). This provision makes no mention whatsoever of “program[s] or activities] conducted by any Executive agency,” the plainly more far-reaching language Congress employed in § 504(a) itself. Whatever might be said about the somewhat curious structure of the liability and remedy provisions, it cannot be disputed that a reference to “Federal providers] ” of financial assistance in § 505(a)(2) does not, without more, establish that Congress has waived the Federal Government’s immunity against monetary damages awards beyond the narrow category of § 504(a) violations committed by federal funding agencies acting as such — that is, by “Federal provider[s].”
The lack of clarity in § 505(a)(2)’s “Federal provider” provision is underscored by the precision with which Congress has waived the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity from compensatory damages claims for violations of §501 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U. S. C. § 791, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment decisions by the Federal Government. In § 505(a)(1), Congress expressly waived the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity against certain remedies for violations of § 501:
“The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [which allows monetary damages] . . . shall be available, with respect to any complaint under section 501 of this Act, to any employee or applicant for employment aggrieved by the final disposition of such complaint, or by the failure to take final action on such complaint.” 29 U. S. C. § 794a(a)(1).
Section 505(a)(1)’s broad language — “any complaint under section 501” — suggests by comparison with § 505(a)(2) that Congress did not intend to treat all § 504(a) defendants alike with regard to remedies. Had Congress wished to make Title VI remedies available broadly for all § 504(a) violations, it could easily have used language in § 505(a)(2) that is as sweeping as the “any complaint” language contained in § 505(a)(1).
But our analysis need not end there. In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress made perfectly plain that compensatory damages would be available for certain violations of §501 by the Federal Government (as well as other §501 defendants), subject to express limitations:
“In an action brought by a complaining party under the powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in ... section 794a(a)(1) of title 29 [which applies to violations of § 501 by the Federal Government] . . . against a respondent who engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact) under section 791 of title 29 and the regulations implementing section 791 of title 29, or who violated the requirements of section 791 of title 29 or the regulations implementing section 791 of title 29 concerning the provision of a reasonable accommodation,... the complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b) of this section . . . from the respondent.” Rev. Stat. § 1977A, as added, 105 Stat. 1072, 42 U. S. C. § 1981a(a)(2).
The Act’s attorney’s fee provision makes a similar point. Section 505(b) provides that, “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce or charge a violation of a provision of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” 29 U. S. C. §794a(b). This provision likewise illustrates Congress’ ability to craft a clear waiver of the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity against particular remedies for violations of the Act. The clarity of these provisions is in sharp contrast to the waiver Lane seeks to tease out of §§504 and 505(a)(2) of the Act.
Lane insists nonetheless that § 505(a)(2) compels a result in his favor, arguing that the Department of Transportation is a “Federal provider” within the meaning of § 505(a)(2) and thus is liable for a compensatory damages award regardless of our resolution of the broader sovereign immunity question. Reply Brief for Petitioner 8-9. We disagree. The Department of Transportation, whatever its other activities, is not a “Federal provider” of financial assistance with respect to the Merchant Marine Academy, which the Department itself administers through the Maritime Administration. At oral argument, Lane’s counsel effectively conceded as much. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 7 (acknowledging that the Department of Transportation is not a federal provider with respect to the Academy “because of this Court’s decision in [Department of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, 477 U. S. 597, 612 (1986)], which indicates that funds that are actually provided to an entity that the Federal Government manages itself, which is what DOT does here . . . for the Merchant Marine Academy,” do not render the agency a “Federal provider”). Lane argues that §505(a)(2)’s reference to “Federal provider^] ” is not limited by the text of the provision itself to the funding activities of those providers, but instead reaches “any act” of an agency that serves as a “Federal provider” in any context. Reply Brief for Petitioner 9, and n. 11. In light of our established practice of construing waivers of sovereign immunity narrowly in favor of the sovereign, however, we decline Lane’s invitation to read the statutory language so broadly.
Lane next encourages us to look not only at the language of the liability and remedies provisions but at the larger statutory scheme, from which he would discern congressional intent to “level the playing field” by subjecting the Federal Government to the same remedies as any and all other § 504(a) defendants. A statutory scheme that would subject the Federal Government to awards of injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and monetary damages when it acts as a “Federal provider,” but would not subject it to monetary damages awards when, and only when, a federal Executive agency itself commits a violation of § 504(a), Lane posits, is so illogical as to foreclose the conclusion that Congress intended to create such a scheme.
The statutory scheme on which Lane hinges his argument is admittedly somewhat bewildering. But the lack of perfect correlation in the various provisions does not indicate, as Lane suggests, that the reading proposed by the Government is entirely irrational. It is plain that Congress is free to waive the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity against liability without waiving its immunity from monetary damages awards. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) illustrates this nicely. Under the provisions of the APA, “[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute,” is expressly authorized to bring “[a]n action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority.” 5 U. S. C. § 702 (emphasis added).
In any event, Lane’s “equal treatment” argument largely misses the crucial point that, when it comes to an award of money damages, sovereign immunity places the Federal Government on an entirely different footing than private parties. Petitioner’s reliance on Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60 (1992), then, is misplaced. In Ftank-lin, we held only that the implied private right of action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 supports a claim for monetary damages. “[A]bsent clear direction to the contrary by Congress,” we stated, “the federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute.” Id., at 70-71. Franklin, however, involved an action against nonfederal defendants under Title IX. Although the Government does not contest the propriety of the injunctive relief Lane obtained, the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity prohibits wholesale application of Franklin to actions against the Government to enforce § 504(a). As the Government puts it, “[w]here a cause of action is authorized against the federal government, the available remedies are not those that are 'appropriate/ but only those for which sovereign immunity has been expressly waived.” Brief for Respondents 28.
And Lane’s “equal treatment” argument falters as well on a point previously discussed: Section 505(a)(2) itself indicates congressional intent to treat federal Executive agencies differently from other § 504(a) defendants for purposes of remedies. See supra, at 192-193. The existence of the § 505(a) (2) remedies provision brings this case outside the “general rule” we discussed in Franklin: This is not a case in which “a right of action exists to enforce a federal right and Congress is silent on the question of remedies.” 503 U. S., at 69. Title IX, the statute at issue in Franklin, made no mention of available remedies. Id., at 71. The Rehabilitation Act, by sharp contrast, contains a provision labeled “Remedies and attorney fees,” § 505. Congress has thus spoken to the question of remedies in § 505(a)(2), the only “remedies” provision directly addressed to §504 violations, and has done so in a way that suggests that it did not in fact intend to waive the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity against monetary damages awards for Executive agencies’ violations of § 504(a). Given the existence of a statutory provision that is directed precisely to the remedies available for violations of § 504, it would be a curious application of our sovereign immunity jurisprudence to conclude, as the dissent appears to do, see post, at 209-210, that the lack of clear reference to Executive agencies in any express remedies provision indicates congressional intent to subject the Federal Government to monetary damages.
Ill
Even if §§ 504(a) and 505(a)(2) together do not establish the requisite unequivocal waiver of immunity, Lane insists, the “equalization” provision contained in § 1003 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986,100 Stat. 1846,42 U. S. C. § 2000d-7, reveals congressional intent to equalize the remedies available against all defendants for § 504(a) violations. Section 1003 was enacted in response to our decision in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234 (1985), where we held that Congress had not unmistakably expressed its intent to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in the Rehabilitation Act, and that the States accordingly were not “subject to suit in federal court by litigants seeking retroactive monetary relief under §504.” Id., at 235. By enacting §1003, Congress sought to provide the sort of unequivocal waiver that our precedents demand. That section provides:
“(1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment... from suit in Federal court for a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance.
“(2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-7(a).
The “public entities” to which § 1003 refers, Lane concludes, must include the federal Executive agencies named in § 504(a), and those agencies must be subject to the same remedies under § 504(a), including monetary damages, as are priváte entities.
Although Lane’s argument is not without some force, § 1003 ultimately cannot bear the weight Lane would assign it. The equalization provision is susceptible of at least two interpretations other than the across-the-board leveling of liability and remedies that Lane proposes. Under the first such interpretation, as proposed by the Government, the “public . . . entities]” to which the statute refers are “the non-federal public entities receiving federal financial assistance that are covered by” each of the statutes to which § 1003(a)(1) refers: The Rehabilitation Act, Title VI, Title IX, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Brief for Respondents 22. The Government’s suggestion is a plausible one: that § 1003(a)(2) refers to municipal hospitals, local school districts, and the like, which are unquestionably subject to each of the Acts listed in § 1003(a)(1). Section 504 alone among the listed Acts, however, extends its coverage to “program[s] or activities] conducted by any Executive agency.”
Section 1003 is also open to a second interpretation, one similar to the “leveling” interpretation suggested by petitioner: By reference to “public or private entities],” Congress meant only to subject the States to the scope of remedies available against either public or private §504 defendants, whatever the lesser (or perhaps the greater) of those remedies might be. Lane’s reading of the statute— one that would suggest that all § 504(a) defendants, including the States, are subject to precisely the same remedies for violations of that provision — would effectively read out of the statute the very language on which he seeks to rely. That is, if the same remedies are available against all governmental and nongovernmental defendants under § 504(a), the “public or private” language is entirely superfluous. Congress could have achieved the result Lane suggests simply by subjecting States to the same remedies available against “every other entity,” without further elaboration. The fact that § 1003(a)(2) itself separately mentions public and private entities suggests that there is a distinction to be made in terms of the remedies available against the two classes of defendants.
Although neither of these conceivable readings of § 1003(a)(2) is entirely satisfactory, their existence points up a fact fatal to Lane’s argument: Section 1003(a) is not so free from ambiguity that we can comfortably conclude, based thereon, that Congress intended to subject the Federal Government to awards of monetary damages for violations of § 504(a) of the Act. Given the care with which Congress responded to our decision in Atascadero by crafting an unambiguous waiver of the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1003, it would be ironic indeed to conclude that that same provision “unequivocally” establishes a waiver of the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity against monetary damages awards by means of an admittedly ambiguous reference to “public . . . entities]” in the remedies provision attached to the unambiguous waiver of the States’ sovereign immunity.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Alberto-Culver Co., the respondent, is an American company incorporated in Delaware with its principal office in Illinois. It manufactures and distributes toiletries and hair products in this country and abroad. During the 1960’s Alberto-Culver decided to expand its overseas operations, and as part of this program it approached the petitioner Fritz Scherk, a German citizen residing at the time of trial in Switzerland. Scherk was the owner of three interrelated business entities, organized under the laws of Germany and Liechtenstein, that were engaged in the manufacture of toiletries and the licensing of trademarks for such toiletries. An initial contact with Scherk was made by a representative of Alberto-Culver in Germany in June 1967, and negotiations followed at further meetings in both Europe and the United States during 1967 and 1968. In February 1969 a contract was signed in Vienna, Austria, which provided for the transfer of the ownership of Scherk’s enterprises to Alberto-Culver, along with all rights held by these enterprises to trademarks in cosmetic goods. The contract contained a number of express warranties whereby Scherk guaranteed the sole and unencumbered ownership of these trademarks. In addition, the contract contained an arbitration clause providing that “any controversy or claim [that] shall arise out of this agreement or the breach thereof” would be referred to arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, France, and that “[t]he laws of the State of Illinois, U. S. A. shall apply to and govern this agreement, its interpretation and performance.”
The closing of the transaction took place in Geneva, Switzerland, in June 1969. Nearly one year later Alberto-Culver allegedly discovered that the trademark rights purchased under the contract were subject to substantial encumbrances that threatened to give others superior rights to the trademarks and to restrict or preclude Alberto-Culver’s use of them. Alberto-Culver thereupon tendered back to Scherk the property that had been transferred to it and offered to rescind the contract. Upon Scherk’s refusal, Alberto-Culver commenced this action for damages and other relief in a Federal District Court in Illinois, contending that Scherk’s fraudulent representations concerning the status of the trademark rights constituted violations of § 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. § 78j (b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 CFR § 240.-10b-5.
In response, Scherk filed a motion to dismiss the action for want of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction as well as on the basis of jorum non conveniens, or, alternatively, to stay the action pending arbitration in Paris pursuant to the agreement of the parties. Alberto-Culver, in turn, opposed this motion and sought a preliminary injunction restraining the prosecution of arbitration proceedings. On December 2, 1971, the District Court denied Scherk’s motion to dismiss, and, on January 14, 1972, it granted a preliminary order enjoining Scherk from proceeding with arbitration. In taking these actions the court relied entirely on this Court’s decision in Wilko v. Swan, 346 U. S. 427, which held that an agreement to arbitrate could not preclude a buyer of a security from seeking a judicial remedy under the Securities Act of 1933, in view of the language of § 14 of that Act, barring “[a]ny condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring any security to waive compliance with any provision of this subchap-ter _” 48 Stat. 84, 15 U. S. C. § 77n. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with one judge dissenting, affirmed, upon what it considered the controlling authority of the Wilko decision. 484 F. 2d 611. Because of the importance of the question presented we granted Scherk’s petition for a writ of certiorari. 414 U. S. 1156.
I
The United States Arbitration Act, now 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., reversing centuries of judicial hostility to arbitration agreements, was designed to allow parties to avoid “the costliness and delays of litigation,” and to place arbitration agreements “upon the same footing as other contracts . . . H. R. Rep. No. 96, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1, 2 (1924); see also S. Rep. No. 536, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924). Accordingly, the Act provides that an arbitration agreement such as is here involved “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U. S. C. § 2. The Act also provides in § 3 for a stay of proceedings in a case where a court is satisfied that the issue before it is arbitrable under the agreement, and § 4 of the Act directs a federal court to order parties to proceed to arbitration if there has been a “failure, neglect, or refusal” of any party to honor an agreement to arbitrate.
In Wilko v. Swan, supra, this Court acknowledged that the Act reflects a legislative recognition of the “desirability of arbitration as an alternative to the complications of litigation,” 346 U. S., at 431, but nonetheless declined to apply the Act’s provisions. That case involved an agreement between Anthony Wilko and Hayden, Stone & Co., a large brokerage firm, under which Wilko agreed to purchase on margin a number of shares of a corporation’s common stock. Wilko alleged that his purchase of the stock was induced by false representations on the part of the defendant concerning the value of the shares, and he brought suit for damages under § 12 (2) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. § 771. The defendant responded that Wilko had agreed to submit all controversies arising out of the purchase to arbitration, and that this agreement, contained in a written margin contract between the parties, should be given full effect under the Arbitration Act.
The Court found that “[t] wo policies, not easily reconcilable, are involved in this case.” 346 U. S., at 438. On the one hand, the Arbitration Act stressed “the need for avoiding the delay and expense of litigation,” id., at 431, and directed that such agreements be “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” in federal courts. On the other hand, the Securities Act of 1933 was “[d]esigned to protect investors” and to require “issuers, underwriters, and dealers to make full and fair disclosure of the character of securities sold in interstate and foreign commerce and to prevent fraud in their sale,” by creating “a special right to recover for misrepresentation . . . .” 346 U. S., at 431 (footnote omitted). In particular, the Court noted that § 14 of the Securities Act, 15 U. S. C. § 77n, provides:
“Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring any security to waive compliance with any provision of this subchapter or of the rules and regulations of the Commission shall be void.”
The Court ruled that an agreement to arbitrate “is a ‘stipulation/ and [that] the right to select the judicial forum is the kind of ‘provision’ that cannot be waived under § 14 of the Securities Act.” 346 U. S., at 434-435. Thus, Wilko’s advance agreement to arbitrate any disputes subsequently arising out of his contract to purchase the securities was unenforceable under the terms of § 14 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Alberto-Culver, relying on this precedent, contends that the District Court and Court of Appeals were correct in holding that its agreement to arbitrate disputes arising under the contract with Scherk is similarly unenforceable in view of its contentions that Scherk’s conduct constituted violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules promulgated thereunder. For the reasons that follow, we reject this contention and hold that the provisions of the Arbitration Act cannot be ignored in this case.
At the outset, a colorable argument could be made that even the semantic reasoning of the Wilko opinion does not control the case before us. Wilko concerned a suit brought under § 12 (2) of the Securities Act of 1933, which provides a defrauded purchaser with the “special right” of a private remedy for civil liability, 346 U. S., at 431. There is no statutory counterpart of § 12 (2) in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and neither § 10 (b) of that Act nor Rule 10b-5 speaks of a private remedy to redress violations of the kind alleged here. While federal case law has established that § 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5 create an implied private cause of action, see 6 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 3869-3873 (1969) and cases cited therein; cf. J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, the Act itself does not establish the “special right” that the Court in Wilko found significant. Furthermore, while both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 contain sections barring waiver of compliance with any “provision” of the respective Acts, certain of the “provisions” of the 1933 Act that the Court held could not be waived by Wilko’s agreement to arbitrate find no counterpart in the 1934 Act. In particular, the Court in Wilko noted that the jurisdictional provision of the 1933 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 77v, allowed a plaintiff to bring suit “in any court of competent jurisdiction — federal or state — and removal from a state court is prohibited.” 346 U. S., at 431. The analogous provision of the 1934 Act, by contrast, provides for suit only in the federal district courts that have “exclusive jurisdiction,” 15 U. S. C. § 78aa, thus significantly restricting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.
Accepting the premise, however, that the operative portions of the language of the 1933 Act relied upon in Wilko are contained in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the respondent’s reliance on Wilko in this case ignores the significant and, we find, crucial differences between the agreement involved in Wilko and the one signed by the parties here. Alberto-Culver’s contract to purchase the business entities belonging to Scherk was a truly international agreement. Alberto-Culver is an American corporation with its principal place of business and the vast bulk of its activity in this, country, while Scherk is a citizen of Germany whose companies were organized under the laws of Germany and Liechtenstein. The negotiations leading to the signing of the contract in Austria and to the closing in Switzerland took place in the United States, England, and Germany, and involved consultations with legal and trademark experts from each of those countries and from Liechtenstein. Finally, and most significantly, the subject matter of the contract concerned the sale of business enterprises organized under the laws of and primarily situated in European countries, whose activities were largely, if not entirely, directed to European markets.
Such a contract involves considerations and policies significantly different from those found controlling in Wilko. In Wilko, quite apart from the arbitration provision, there was no question but that the laws of the United States generally, and the federal securities- laws in particular, would govern disputes arising out of the stock-purchase agreement. The parties, the negotiations, and the subject matter of the contract were all situated in this country, and no credible claim could have been entertained that any international conflict-of-laws problems would arise. In this case, by contrast, in the absence of the arbitration provision considerable uncertainty existed at the time of the agreement, and still exists, concerning the law applicable to the resolution of disputes arising out of the contract.
Such uncertainty will almost inevitably exist with respect to any contract touching two or more countries, each with its own substantive laws and conflict-of-laws rules. A contractual provision specifying in advance the forum in which disputes shall be litigated and the law to be applied is, therefore, an almost indispensable precondition to achievement of the orderliness and predictability essential to any international business transaction. Furthermore, such a provision obviates the danger that a dispute under the agreement might be submitted to a forum hostile to the interests of. one of the parties or unfamiliar with the problem area involved.
A parochial refusal by the courts of one country to enforce an international arbitration agreement would not only frustrate these purposes, but would invite unseemly and mutually destructive jockeying by the parties to secure tactical litigation advantages. In the present case, for example, it is not inconceivable that if Scherk had anticipated that Alberto-Culver would be able in this country to enjoin resort to arbitration he might have sought an order in France or some other country enjoining Alberto-Culver from proceeding with its litigation in the United States. Whatever recognition the courts of this country might ultimately have granted to the order of the foreign court, the dicey atmosphere of such a legal no-man’s-land would surely- damage the fabric of international commerce and trade, and imperil the willingness and ability of businessmen to enter into international commercial agreements.
The exception to the clear provisions of the Arbitration Act carved out by Wilko is simply inapposite to a case such as the one before us. In Wilko the Court reasoned that “[w]hen the security buyer, prior to any violation of the Securities Act, waives his right to sue in courts, he gives up more than would a participant in other business transactions. The security buyer has a wider choice of courts and venue. He thus surrenders one of the advantages the Act gives him . . . .” 346 U. S., at 435. In the context of an international contract, however, these advantages become chimerical since, as indicated above, an opposing party may by speedy resort to a foreign court block or hinder access to the American court of the purchaser’s choice.
Two Terms ago in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U. S. 1, we rejected the doctrine that a forum-selection clause of a contract, although voluntarily adopted by the parties, will not be respected in a suit brought in the United States “ 'unless the selected state would provide a more convenient forum than the state in which suit is brought.’ ” Id., at 7. Rather, we concluded that a “forum clause should control absent a strong showing that it should be set aside.” Id., at 15. We noted that “much uncertainty and possibly great inconvenience to both parties could arise if a suit could be maintained in any jurisdiction in which an accident might occur or if jurisdiction were left to any place [where personal or in rem jurisdiction might be established]. The elimination of all such uncertainties by agreeing in advance on a forum acceptable to both parties is an indispensable element in international trade, commerce, and contracting.” Id., at 13-14.
An agreement to arbitrate before a specified tribunal is, in effect, a specialized kind of forum-selection clause that posits not only the situs of suit but also the procedure to be used in resolving the dispute. The invalidation of such an agreement in the case before us would not only allow the respondent to repudiate its solemn promise but would, as well, reflect a “parochial concept that all disputes must be resolved under our laws and in our courts. . . . We cannot have trade and commerce in world markets and international waters exclusively on our terms, governed by our laws, and resolved in our courts.” Id., at 9.
For all these reasons we hold that the agreement of the parties in this case to arbitrate any dispute arising out of their international commercial transaction is to be respected and enforced by the federal courts in accord with the explicit provisions of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with directions to remand to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The arbitration clause relating to the transfer of one of Scherk’s business entities,, similar to the clauses covering the other two, reads in. its entirety as follows:
“The parties agree that if any controversy or claim shall arise out of this agreement or the breach thereof and either party shall request that the matter shall be settled by arbitration, the matter shall be settled exclusively by arbitration in accordance with the rules then obtaining of the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris, France, by a single arbitrator, if the parties shall agree upon one, or by one arbitrator appointed by each party and a third arbitrator appointed by the other arbitrators. In case of any failure of a party to make an appointment referred to above within four weeks after notice of the controversy, such appointment shall be made by said Chamber. All arbitration proceedings shall be held in Paris, France, and each party agrees to comply in all respects with any award made in any such proceeding and to the entry of a judgment in any jurisdiction upon any award rendered in such proceeding. The laws of the State of Illinois, U. S. A. shall apply to and govern this agreement, its interpretation and performance.”
Scherk had taken steps to initiate arbitration in Paris in early 1971. He did not, however, file a formal request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce until November 9, 1971, almost five months after the filing of Alberto-Culver’s complaint in the Illinois federal court.
The memorandum opinion of the District Court is unreported.
English courts traditionally considered irrevocable arbitration agreements as “ousting” the courts of jurisdiction, and refused to enforce such agreements for this reason. This view was adopted by American courts as part of the common law up to the time of the adoption of the Arbitration Act. See H. R. Rep. No. 96, 68th Cong., lst Sess., 1, 2 (1924); Sturges & Murphy, Some Confusing Matters Relating to Arbitration under the United States Arbitration Act, 17 Law & Contemp. Prob. 580.
Section 2 of the Arbitration Act renders “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” written arbitration provisions “in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce . . .,” as those terms are defined in § 1. In Bernhardt v. Poly-graphic Co., 350 U. S. 198, this Court held that the stay provisions of § 3 apply only to the two kinds of contracts specified in §§ 1 and 2. Since the transaction in this case constituted “commerce . . . with foreign nations,” 9 U. S. C. § 1, the Act clearly covers this agreement.
The arbitration agreement involved in Wilko was contained in a standard form margin contract. But see the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, 346 U. S. 427, 439, 440, concluding that the record did not show that “the plaintiff [Wilko] in opening an account had no choice but to accept the arbitration stipulation . . . .” The petitioner here would limit the decision in Wilko to situations where the parties exhibit a disparity of bargaining power, and contends that, since the negotiations leading to the present contract took place over a number of years and involved the participation on. both sides of knowledgeable and sophisticated business and legal experts, the Wilko decision should not apply. See also the dissenting opinion of Judge Stevens of the Court of Appeals in this case, 484 F. 2d 611, 615. Because of our disposition of this case on other grounds, we need not consider this contention.
Section 14 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. § 77n, provides as follows:
"Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring any security to waive compliance with any provision of this subchapter or of the rules and regulations of the Commission shall be void.”
Section 29 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78cc (a), provides:
“Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder, or of any rule of an exchange required thereby shall be void.”
While the two sections are not identical, the variations in their wording seem irrelevant to the issue presented in this case.
We do not reach, or imply any opinion as to, the question whether the acquisition of Scherk’s businesses was a security transaction within the meaning of § 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Although this important question was considered by the District Court and the Court of Appeals, and although the dissenting opinion, post, p. 521, seems to consider it controlling, the petitioner did not assign the adverse ruling on the question as error and it was not briefed or argued in this Court.
Together with his motion for a stay pending arbitration, Scherk moved that the complaint be dismissed because the federal securities laws do not apply to this international transaction, cf. Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corp. v. Maxwell, 468 F. 2d 1326 (CA2 1972). Since only the order granting the injunction was appealed, this contention was not considered by the Court of Appeals and is not before this Court.
See Quigley, Accession by the United States to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 70 Yale L. J. 1049,' 1051 (1961). For example, while the arbitration agreement involved here provided that the controversies arising out of the agreement be resolved under “[t]he laws of the State of Illinois,” supra, n. 1, a determination of the existence and extent of fraud concerning the trademarks would necessarily involve an understanding of foreign law on that subject.
The dissenting opinion argues that our conclusion that Wilko is inapplicable to the situation presented in this case will vitiate the force of that decision because parties to transactions with many-more direct contacts with this country than in the present case will nonetheless be able to invoke the “talisman” of having an “international contract.” Post, at 529. Coneededly, situations may arise where the contacts with foreign countries are so insignificant or attenuated that the holding in Wilko would meaningfully apply. Judicial response to such situations can and should await future litigation in concrete cases. This case, however, provides no basis for a judgment that only United States laws and United States courts should determine this controversy in the face of a solemn agreement between the parties that such controversies be resolved elsewhere. The only contact between the United States and the transaction involved here is the fact that Alberto-Culver is an American corporation and the occurrence of some — but by no means the greater part — of the pre-contract negotiations in this country. To determine that “American standards of fairness,” post, at 528, must nonetheless govern the controversy demeans the standards of justice elsewhere in the world, and unnecessarily exalts the primacy of United States law over the laws of other countries.
The dissenting opinion raises the specter that our holding today will leave American investors at the mercy of multinational corporations with .“vast operations around the world . . . .” Post, at 533. Our decision, of course, has no bearing on the scope of the substantive provisions of the federal securities laws for the simple reason that the question is not presented in this case. See n. 8, supra.
Under some circumstances, the designation of arbitration in a certain place might also be viewed as implicitly selecting the law of that place to apply to that transaction. In this case, however, “[t]he laws of the State of Illinois” were explicitly made applicable by the ' arbitration agreement. See n. 1, supra.
In The Bremen we noted that forum-selection clauses “should be given full effect” when “a freely negotiated private international agreement [is] unaffected by fraud . . . .” 407 U. S., at 13, 12. This qualification does not mean that any time a dispute arising out of a transaction is based upon an allegation, of fraud, as in this case, the clause is unenforceable. Rather, it means that an arbitration or forum-selection clause in a contract is not enforceable if the inclusion of that clause in the contract was the product of fraud or coercion. Cf. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 395.
Although we do not decide the question, presumably the type of fraud alleged here could be raised, under Art. V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, see n. 15, infra, in challenging the enforcement of whatever arbitral award is produced through arbitration. Article V (2) (b) of the Convention provides that a country may refuse recognition and enforcement of an award if “recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country.”
Our conclusion today is confirmed by international developments and domestic legislation in the area of commercial arbitration subsequent to the Wilko decision. On June 10, 1958, a special conference of the United Nations Economic and Social Council adopted the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. In 1970 the United States acceded to the treaty, [1970] 3 U. S. T. 2517, T. I. A. S. No. 6997, and Congress passed Chapter 2 of the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 201 et seq., in order to implement the Convention. Section 1 of the new chapter, 9 U. S. C. § 201, provides unequivocally that the Convention “shall be enforced in United States courts in accordance with this chapter,”
The goal of the Convention, and the principal purpose underlying American adoption and implementation of it, was to encourage the recognition and enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts and to unify the standards by which agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are enforced in the signatory countries. See Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, S. Exec. Doc. E, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968); Quigley, Accession by the United States to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 70 Yale L. J. 1049 (1961). Article II (1) of the Convention provides:
“Each Contracting State shall recognize an agreement in writing under which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration all or any differences which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not, concerning a subject matter capable of settlement by arbitration.”
In their discussion of this Article, the delegates to the Convention voiced frequent concern that courts of signatory countries in which an agreement to arbitrate is sought to be enforced should not be permitted to decline enforcement of such agreements on the basis of parochial views of their desirability or in a manner that would diminish the mutually binding nature of the agreements. See Q. Haight; Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: Summary Analysis of Record of United Nations Conference, May/June 1958, pp. 2A-28 (1958).
Without reaching the issue of whether the Convention, apart from the considerations expressed in this opinion, would require of its own force that the agreement to arbitrate be enforced in the present case, we think that this country’s adoption and ratification of the Convention and the passage of Chapter 2 of the United States Arbitration Act provide strongly persuasive evidence of congressional policy consistent with the decision we reach today.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted review in this case to decide whether restitution obligations, imposed as conditions of probation in state criminal proceedings, are dischargeable in proceedings under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.
HH
In 1980, Carolyn Robinson pleaded guilty to larceny m the second degree. The charge was based on her wrongful receipt of $9,932.95 in welfare benefits from the Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance. On November 14, 1980, the Connecticut Superior Court sentenced Robinson to a prison term of not less than one year nor more than three years. The court suspended execution of the sentence and placed Robinson on probation for five years. As a condition of probation, the judge ordered Robinson to make restitution to the State of Connecticut Office of Adult Probation (Probation Office) at the rate of $100 per month, commencing January 16,1981, and continuing until the end of her probation.
On February 5, 1981, Robinson filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 701 et seq., in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut. That petition listed the restitution obligation as a debt. On February 20, 1981, the Bankruptcy Court notified both of the Connecticut agencies of Robinson’s petition and informed them that April 27, 1981, was the deadline for filing objections to discharge. The agencies did not file proofs of claim or objections to discharge, apparently because they took the position that the bankruptcy would not affect the conditions of Robinson’s probation. Thus, the agencies did not participate in the distribution of Robinson’s estate. On May 14, 1981, the Bankruptcy Court granted Robinson a discharge. See § 727.
At the time Robinson received her discharge in bankruptcy, she had paid $450 in restitution. On May 20, 1981, her attorney wrote the Probation Office that she believed the discharge had altered the conditions of Robinson’s probation, voiding the condition that she pay restitution. Robinson made no further payments.
The Connecticut Probation Office did not respond to this letter until February 1984, when it informed Robinson that it considered the obligation to pay restitution nondischargeable. Robinson responded by filing an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court, seeking a declaration that the restitution obligation had been discharged, as well as an injunction to prevent the State’s officials from forcing Robinson to pay.
After a trial, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum and proposed order, concluding that the 1981 discharge in bankruptcy had not altered the conditions of Robinson’s probation. Robinson v. McGuigan, 45 B. R. 423 (1984). The court adopted the analysis it had applied in a similar case decided one month earlier, In re Pellegrino (Pellegrino v. Division of Criminal Justice), 42 B. R. 129 (1984). In Pellegrino, the court began with the Bankruptcy Code’s definitional sections. First, § 101(11) defines a “debt” as a “liability on a claim.” In turn, §101(4) defines a “claim” as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” Finally, §101(9) defines a “creditor” as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.”
The Pellegrino court then examined the statute under which the Connecticut judge had sentenced the debtor to pay restitution. Restitution appears as one of the conditions of probation enumerated in Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-30 (1985). Under that section, restitution payments are sent to the Probation Office. The payments then are forwarded to the victim. Although the Connecticut penal code does not provide for enforcement of the probation conditions by the victim, it does authorize the trial court to issue a warrant for the arrest of a criminal defendant who has violated a condition of probation. § 53a-32.
Because the Connecticut statute does not allow the victim to enforce a right to receive payment, the court concluded that neither the victim nor the Probation Office had a “right to payment,” and hence neither was owed a “debt” under the Bankruptcy Code. It argued: “Unlike an obligation which arises out of a contractual, statutory or common law duty, here the obligation is rooted in the traditional responsibility of a state to protect its citizens by enforcing its criminal statutes and to rehabilitate an offender by imposing a criminal sanction intended for that purpose.” 42 B. R., at 133. The court acknowledged the tension between its conclusion and the Code’s expansive definition of debt, but found an exception to the statutory definition in “the long-standing tradition of restraint by federal courts from interference with traditional functions of state governments.” Id., at 134. The court concluded that, even if the probation condition was a debt subject to bankruptcy jurisdiction, it was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7) of the Code. That subsection provides that a discharge in bankruptcy does not affect any debt that “is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.”
The court also concluded that the purpose of the restitution condition was “to promote the rehabilitation of the offender, not to compensate the victim.” 42 B. R., at 137. It specifically rejected the argument that the restitution must be deemed compensatory because the amount precisely matched the victim’s loss. It noted that the state statute allows an offender to “make restitution of the fruits of his offense or make restitution, in an amount he can afford to pay or provide in a suitable manner, for the loss or damage caused thereby,” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-30(a)(4) (1985). In its view, the Connecticut statute focuses “upon the offender and not on the victim, and . . . restitution is part of the criminal penalty rather than compensation for a victim’s actual loss.” 42 B. R., at 137. Thus, the Bankruptcy Court held that the bankruptcy discharge had not affected the conditions of Pellegrino’s probation. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut adopted the Bankruptcy Court’s proposed dispositions of Pellegrino and this case without alteration.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. In re Robinson, 776 F. 2d 30 (1985). It first examined the Code’s definition of debt. Although it recognized that most courts had reached the opposite conclusion, the court decided that a restitution obligation imposed as a condition of probation is a debt. It relied on the legislative history of the Code that evinced Congress’ intent to broaden the definition of “debt” from the much narrower definition of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898. The court also noted that anomalies might result from a conclusion that such an obligation is not a debt. Most importantly, nondebt status would deprive a State of the opportunity to participate in the distribution of the debt- or’s estate.
Having concluded that restitution obligations are debts, the court turned to the question of dischargeability. The court stated that the appropriate Connecticut agency probably could have avoided discharge of the debt if it had objected under §§ 523(a)(2) or 523(a)(4) of the Code. As no objections to discharge were filed, the court concluded that the State could rely only on § 523(a)(7), the subsection that provides for automatic nondischargeability for certain debts. The court then looked to the text of the Connecticut statute to determine whether Robinson’s probation condition was “compensation for actual pecuniary loss” within the meaning of § 523(a)(7). But where the Bankruptcy Court had considered the entire state probation system, the Court of Appeals focused only on the language that allows a restitution order to be assessed “for the loss or damage caused [by the crime],” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-30(a)(4) (1985). The court thought this language compelled the conclusion that the probation condition was “compensation for actual pecuniary loss.” It held, therefore, that this particular condition of Robinson’s probation was not protected from discharge by § 523(a)(7). Accordingly, it reversed the District Court.
We granted the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari. 475 U. S. 1009 (1986). We have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1). We reverse.
II
The Court of Appeals’ decision focused primarily on the language of §§101 and 523 of the Code. Of course, the “starting point in every case involving construction of a statute is the language itself.” Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 756 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring). But the text is only the starting point. As Justice O’Connor explained last Term: “ ‘ “In expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.”’” Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U. S. 207, 221 (1986) (quoting Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U. S. 270, 285 (1956) (in turn quoting United States v. Heirs of Boisdoré, 8 How. 113, 122 (1849))). In this case, we must consider the language of §§ 101 and 523 in light of the history of bankruptcy court deference to criminal judgments and in light of the interests of the States in unfettered administration of their criminal justice systems.
A
Courts traditionally have been reluctant to interpret federal bankruptcy statutes to remit state criminal judgments. The present text of Title 11, commonly referred to as the Bankruptcy Code, was enacted in 1978 to replace the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, ch. 541, 30 Stat. 544. The treatment of criminal judgments under the Act of 1898 informs our understanding of the language of the Code.
First, § 57 of the Act established the category of “allowable” debts. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 57 (14th ed. 1977). Only if a debt was allowable could the creditor receive a share of the bankrupt’s assets. See § 65a. For this case, it is important to note that § 57j excluded from the class of allowable debts penalties owed to government entities. That section provided:
“Debts owing to the United States, a State, a county, a district, or a municipality as a penalty or forfeiture shall not be allowed, except for the amount of the pecuniary loss sustained by the act, transaction, or proceeding out of which the penalty or forfeiture arose.” 30 Stat. 561.
Second, §63 established the separate category of “provable” debts. See 3A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶63 (14th ed. 1975). Section 17 provided that a discharge in bankruptcy “release[d] a bankrupt from all of his provable debts,” subject to several exceptions listed in later portions of §17. Although § 17 specifically excepted four types of debts from discharge, it did not mention criminal penalties of any kind. The most natural construction of the Act, therefore, would have allowed criminal penalties to be discharged in bankruptcy, even though the government was not entitled to a share of the bankrupt’s estate. Congress had considered criminal penalties when it passed the Act; it clearly made them nonallowable. The failure expressly to make them nondischargeable at the same time offered substantial support for the view that the Act discharged those penalties.
But the courts did not interpret the Act in this way. Despite the clear statutory language, most courts refused to allow a discharge in bankruptcy to affect the judgment of a state criminal court. In the leading case, the court reasoned:
“It might be admitted that sections 63 and 17 of the bankrupt act, if only the letter of those provisions be looked to, would embrace [criminal penalties]; but it is well settled that there may be cases in which such literal construction is not admissible. ... It may suffice to say that nothing but a ruling from a higher court would convince me that congress, by any provision of the bankrupt act, intended to permit the discharge, under its operations, of any judgment rendered by a state or federal court imposing a fine in the enforcement of criminal laws. . . . The provisions of the bankrupt act have reference alone to civil liabilities, as demands between debtor and creditors, as such, and not to punishment inflicted pro bono publico for crimes committed.” In re Moore, 111 F. 145, 148-149 (WD Ky. 1901).
This reasoning was so widely accepted by the time Congress enacted the new Code that a leading commentator could state flatly that “fines and penalties are not affected by a discharge.” See 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶17.13, pp. 1609-1610, and n. 10 (14th ed. 1978).
Moreover, those few courts faced with restitution obligations imposed as part of criminal sentences applied the same reasoning to prevent a discharge in bankruptcy from affecting such a condition of a criminal sentence. For instance, four years before Congress enacted the Code, a New York Supreme Court stated:
“A discharge in bankruptcy has no effect whatsoever upon a condition of restitution of a criminal sentence. A bankruptcy proceeding is civil in nature and is intended to relieve an honest and unfortunate debtor of his debts and to permit him to begin his financial life anew. A condition of restitution in a sentence of probation is a part of the judgment of conviction. It does not create a debt nor a debtor-creditor relationship between the persons making and receiving restitution. As with any other condition of a probationary sentence it is intended as a means to insure the defendant will lead a law-abiding life thereafter.” State v. Mosesson, 78 Misc. 2d 217, 218, 356 N. Y. S. 2d 483, 484 (1974) (citations omitted).
Thus, Congress enacted the Code in 1978 against the background of an established judicial exception to discharge for criminal sentences, including restitution orders, an exception created in the face of a statute drafted with considerable care and specificity.
Just last Term we declined to hold that the new Bankruptcy Code silently abrogated another exception created by courts construing the old Act. In Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 474 U. S. 494 (1986), a trustee in bankruptcy asked us to hold that the 1978 Code had implicitly repealed an exception to the trustee’s abandonment power. Courts had created that exception out of deference to state health and safety regulations, a consideration comparable to the States’ interests implicated by this case. We stated:
“The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific. The Court has followed this rule with particular care in construing the scope of bankruptcy codifications. If Congress wishes to grant the trustee an extraordinary exemption from nonbankruptcy law, ‘the intention would be clearly expressed, not left to be collected or inferred from disputable considerations of convenience in administering the estate of the bankrupt.’” Id., at 501 (quoting Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U. S. 441, 444 (1904)) (citations omitted).
B
Our interpretation of the Code also must reflect the basis for this judicial exception, a deep conviction that federal bankruptcy courts should not invalidate the results of state criminal proceedings. The right to formulate and enforce penal sanctions is an important aspect of the sovereignty retained by the States. This Court has emphasized repeatedly “the fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal prosecutions.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 46 (1971). The Court of Appeals nevertheless found support for its holding in the fact that Connecticut officials probably could have ensured continued enforcement of their court’s criminal judgment against Robinson had they objected to discharge under § 523(c). Although this may be true in many cases, it hardly justifies an interpretation of the 1978 Act that is contrary to the long-prevailing view that “fines and penalties are not affected by a discharge,” 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶17.13, p. 1610 (14th ed. 1978).
Moreover, reliance on a right to appear and object to discharge would create uncertainties and impose undue burdens on state officials. In some cases it would require state prosecutors to defend particular state criminal judgments before federal bankruptcy courts. As Justice Brennan has noted, federal adjudication of matters already at issue in state criminal proceedings can be “an unwarranted and unseemly duplication of the State’s own adjudicative process.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 121 (1971) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Also, as Robinson’s attorney conceded at oral argument, some restitution orders would not be protected from discharge even if the State did appear and enter an objection to discharge. For example, a judge in a negligent homicide case might sentence the defendant to probation, conditioned on the defendant’s paying the victim’s husband compensation for the loss the husband sustained when the defendant killed his wife. It is not clear that such a restitution order would fit the terms of any of the exceptions to discharge listed in § 523 other than § 523(a)(7). Thus, this interpretation of the Code would do more than force state prosecutors to defend state criminal judgments in federal bankruptcy court. In some cases, it could lead to federal remission of judgments imposed by state criminal judges.
This prospect, in turn, would hamper the flexibility of state criminal judges in choosing the combination of imprisonment, fines, and restitution most likely to further the rehabilitative and deterrent goals of state criminal justice systems. We do not think Congress lightly would limit the rehabilitative and deterrent options available to state criminal judges.
In one of our cases interpreting the Act, Justice Douglas remarked: “[W]e do not read these statutory words with the ease of a computer. There is an overriding consideration that equitable principles govern the exercise of bankruptcy jurisdiction.” Bank of Marin v. England, 385 U. S. 99, 103 (1966). This Court has recognized that the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief. See Younger v. Harris, supra, at 44-45. This reflection of our federalism also must influence our interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code in this case.
I — I l-H I — I
In light of the established state of the law — that bankruptcy courts could not discharge criminal judgments — we have serious doubts whether Congress intended to make criminal penalties “debts” within the meaning of §101(4). But we need not address that question in this case, because we hold that § 523(a)(7) preserves from discharge any condition a state criminal court imposes as part of a criminal sentence.
The relevant portion of § 523(a)(7) protects from discharge any debt
“to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.”
This language is subject to interpretation. On its face, § 523(a)(7) certainly does not compel the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals, that a discharge in bankruptcy voids restitution orders imposed as conditions of probation by state courts. Nowhere in the- House and Senate Reports is there any indication that this language should be read so intrusively. If Congress had intended, by § 523(a)(7) or by any other provision, to discharge state criminal sentences, “we can be certain that there would have been hearings, testimony, and debate concerning consequences so wasteful, so inimical to purposes previously deemed important, and so likely to arouse public outrage,” TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153, 209 (1978) (Powell, J., dissenting).
Our reading of § 523(a)(7) differs from that of the Second Circuit. On its face, it creates a broad exception for all penal sanctions, whether they be denominated fines, penalties, or forfeitures. Congress included two qualifying phrases; the fines must be both “to and for the benefit of a governmental unit,” and “not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.” Section 523(a)(7) protects traditional criminal fines; it codifies the judicially created exception to discharge for fines. We must decide whether the result is altered by the two major differences between restitution and a traditional fine. Unlike traditional fines, restitution is forwarded to the victim, and may be calculated by reference to the amount of harm the offender has caused.
In our view, neither of the qualifying clauses of § 523(a)(7) allows the discharge of a criminal judgment that takes the form of restitution. The criminal justice system is not operated primarily for the benefit of victims, but for the benefit of society as a whole. Thus, it is concerned not only with punishing the offender, but also with rehabilitating him. Although restitution does resemble a judgment “for the benefit of” the victim, the context in which it is imposed undermines that conclusion. The victim has no control over the amount of restitution awarded or over the decision to award restitution. Moreover, the decision to impose restitution generally does not turn on the victim’s injury, but on the penal goals of the State and the situation of the defendant. As the Bankruptcy Judge who decided this case noted in Pellegrino: “Unlike an obligation which arises out of a contractual, statutory or common law duty, here the obligation is rooted in the traditional responsibility of a state to protect its citizens by enforcing its criminal statutes and to rehabilitate an offender by imposing a criminal sanction intended for that purpose.” 42 B. R., at 133.
This point is well illustrated by the Connecticut statute under which the restitution obligation was imposed. The statute authorizes a judge to impose any of eight specified conditions of probation, as well as “any other conditions reasonably related to his rehabilitation.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-30(a)(9) (1985). Clause (4) of that section authorizes a judge to require that the defendant
“make restitution of the fruits of his offense or make restitution, in an amount he can afford to pay or provide in a suitable manner, for the loss or damage caused thereby and the court may fix the amount thereof and the manner of performance.”
This clause does not require imposition of restitution in the amount of the harm caused. Instead, it provides for a flexible remedy tailored to the defendant’s situation.
Because criminal proceedings focus on the State’s interests in rehabilitation and punishment, rather than the victim’s desire for compensation, we conclude that restitution orders imposed in such proceedings operate “for the benefit of” the State. Similarly, they are not assessed “for . . . compensation” of the victim. The sentence following a criminal conviction necessarily considers the penal and rehabilitative interests of the State. Those interests are sufficient to place restitution orders within the meaning of § 523(a)(7).
In light of the strong interests of the States, the uniform construction of the old Act over three-quarters of a century, and the absence of any significant evidence that Congress intended to change the law in this area, we believe this result best effectuates the will of Congress. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is
Reversed.
Connecticut Gen. Stat. § 53a-30 (1985) sets out the conditions a trial court may impose on a sentence of probation. Clause 4 of that section authorizes a condition that the defendant “make restitution of the fruits of his offense or make restitution, in an amount he can afford to pay or provide in a suitable manner, for the loss or damage caused thereby and the court may fix the amount thereof and the manner of performance.”
There is some uncertainty about the total amount Robinson was ordered to pay. Although the judge imposed restitution in a total amount of $9,932.95, five years of payments at $100 a month total only $6,000.
Section 523(a)(2)(A) protects from discharge debts “for obtaining money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinance of credit, by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” Section 523(a)(4) protects from discharge debts “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.” Under § 523(c), debts that are protected from discharge only by § 523(a)(2) or § 523(a)(4) are discharged unless the creditor files an objection to discharge during the bankruptcy proceedings. Because Robinson was convicted of larceny, one of the debts listed in § 523(a)(4), it is quite likely that the Bankruptcy Court, if it had found the obligation to be a “debt,” would have found it non-dischargeable under that subsection.
The requirement that creditors object to discharge is limited on its face to ¶¶ (2), (4), and (6) of § 523(a). Because ¶ 7 is not listed there, debts described in that paragraph are automatically nondischargeable, under the general rule prescribed in the opening clause of § 523(a) (providing that a “discharge under section 727 ... of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt” listed in the paragraphs that follow).
Congress amended the Bankruptcy Act several times between 1898 and 1978. Congress also made numerous technical changes to the Code in the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-353, 98 Stat. 380. None of those changes are relevant to this decision.
Although courts differed as to the boundaries of the exception, particularly in cases involving nonmonetary sanctions, or sanctions imposed in civil proceedings, the reasoning of Moore was widely accepted. See, e. g., Parker v. United States, 153 F. 2d 66, 71 (CA1 1946) (citing Moore and noting that “[i]t was not in the contemplation of Congress that the federal bankruptcy power should be employed to pardon a bankrupt from the consequences of a criminal offense”); Zwick v. Freeman, 373 F. 2d 110, 116 (CA2 1967) (citing Moore and stating that “governmental sanctions are not regarded as debts even when they require monetary payments”). We have found only one federal-court decision allowing a discharge under the Act to affect a sentence imposed by a criminal court. In re Alderson, 98 F. 588 (W. Va. 1899).
For other decisions adopting this reasoning, see People v. Topping Bros., 79 Misc. 2d 260, 262, 359 N. Y. S. 2d 985, 987-988 (Crim. Ct. 1974); People v. Washburn, 97 Cal. App. 3d 621, 625-626, 158 Cal. Rptr. 822, 825 (1979).
In many eases, of course, principles of issue preclusion would obviate the need for the bankruptcy court to reexamine factual questions, or interpret state law. But differences between the elements of crimes and the provisions of § 523 frequently might hinder the application of issue preclusion. Moreover, apart from the burden on state officials of following and participating in bankruptcy proceedings, it is unseemly to require state prosecutors to submit the judgments of their criminal courts to federal bankruptcy courts.
Of course, federal courts often duplicate state adjudicative processes when they consider petitions for the writ of habeas corpus. But explicit reference in the Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, as well as several federal statutes, testifies to the importance of the writ of habeas corpus. Here, the ease for relitigation in the federal courts rests only on the ambiguous words of the Bankruptcy Code.
Restitution is an effective rehabilitative penalty because it forces the defendant to confront, in concrete terms, the harm his actions have caused. Such a penalty will affect the defendant differently than a traditional fine, paid to the State as an abstract and impersonal entity, and often calculated without regard to the harm the defendant has caused. Similarly, the direct relation between the harm and the punishment gives restitution a more precise deterrent effect than a traditional fine. See Note, Victim Restitution in the Criminal Process: A Procedural Analysis, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 931, 937-941 (1984).
Justice Frankfurter advocated a similar approach to the interpretation of regulatory statutes that infringe upon important state interests:
“The task is one of accommodation as between assertions of new federal authority and historic functions of the individual states. Federal legislation of this character cannot therefore be construed without regard to the implications of our dual system of government. . . . The underlying assumptions of our dual form of government, and the consequent presuppositions of legislative draftsmanship which are expressive of our history and habits, cut across what might otherwise be the implied range of legislation. The history of congressional legislation . . . justifies] the generalization that, when the Federal Government takes over such local radiations in the vast network of our national economic enterprise and thereby radically readjusts the balance of state and national authority, those charged with the duty of legislating are reasonably explicit.” Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 539-540 (1947).
We recognize, as the Court of Appeals emphasized, that the Code’s definition of “debt” is broadly drafted, and that the legislative history, as well as the Code’s various priority and dischargeability provisions, supports a broad reading of the definition. But nothing in the legislative history of these sections compels the conclusion that Congress intended to change the state of the law with respect to criminal judgments.
For the section-by-section analysis in the legislative Reports, see H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 363 (1977); S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 79 (1978). For explanations of the section by commentators, see 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 523.17 (15th ed. 1986); 1W. Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice §27.37 (1982). In fact, both of these commentators expressly state that the language does not have the intrusive effect sought by Robinson. See Collier ¶ 523.17, at 523-123, n. 4; Norton §27.37, at 55, n. 2.
It seems likely that the limitation of § 523(a)(7) to fines assessed “for the benefit of a governmental unit” was intended to prevent application of that subsection to wholly private penalties such as punitive damages. See H. R. Doc. No. 93-137, pt. 2, pp. 116, 141 (1973). As for the reference to “compensation for actual pecuniary loss,” the Senate Report indicates that the main purpose of this language was to prevent § 523(a)(7) from being applied to tax penalties. S. Rep. No. 95-989, supra, at 79.
We acknowledge that a few comments in the hearings and the Bankruptcy Laws Commission Report may suggest that the language bears the interpretation adopted by the Second Circuit. But none of those statements was made by a Member of Congress, nor were they included in the official Senate and House Reports. We decline to accord any significance to these statements. See McCaughn v. Hershey Chocolate Co., 283 U. S. 488, 493-494 (1931); 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction §48.10, pp. 319 and 321, n. 11 (4th ed. 1984).
This is not the only context in which courts have been forced to evaluate the treatment of restitution orders by determining whether they are “compensatory” or “penal.” Several lower courts have addressed the constitutionality of the federal Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3579. Under that Act, defendants have no right to jury trial as to the amount of restitution, even though the Seventh Amendment would require such a trial if the issue were decided in a civil case. See Note, The Right to a Jury Trial to Determine Restitution Under the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, 63 Texas L. Rev. 671 (1984). Every Federal Court of Appeals that has considered the question has concluded that criminal defendants contesting the assessment of restitution orders are not entitled to the protections of the Seventh Amendment. See id., at 672, n. 18 (citing eases).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Sotomayor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
When the State of Michigan rested its case at petitioner Lamar Evans’ arson trial, the court entered a directed verdict of acquittal, based upon its view that the State had not provided sufficient evidence of a particular element of the offense. It turns out that the unproven “element” was not actually a required element at all. We must decide whether an erroneous acquittal such as this nevertheless constitutes an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, which would mean that Evans could not be retried. This Court has previously held that a judicial acquittal premised upon a “misconstruction” of a criminal statute is an “acquittal on the merits [that] bars retrial.” Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U. S. 203, 211 (1984). Seeing no meaningful constitutional distinction between a trial court’s “misconstruction” of a statute and its erroneous addition of a statutory element, we hold that a midtrial acquittal in these circumstances is an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes as well.
I
The State charged Evans with burning “other real property,” a violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.73 (1981). The State’s evidence at trial suggested that Evans had burned down an unoccupied house. At the close of the State’s case, however, Evans moved for a directed verdict of acquittal. He pointed the court to the applicable Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions, which listed as the “Fourth” element of the offense “that the building was not a dwelling house.” 3 Mich. Crim. Jury Instr. §31.3, p. 31-7 (2d ed., Supp. 2006/ 2007). And the commentary to the instructions emphasized, “an essential element is that the structure burned is not a dwelling house.” Id., at 31-8. Evans argued that Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.72 criminalizes common-law arson, which requires that the structure burned be a dwelling, while the provision under which he was charged, §750.73, covers all other real property. Persuaded, the trial court granted the motion. 491 Mich. 1, 8, 810 N. W. 2d 535, 539 (2012). The court explained that the “ ‘testimony [of the homeowner] was this was a dwelling house,’ ” so the nondwelling requirement of § 750.73 was not met. Ibid.
On the State’s appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 288 Mich. App. 410, 794 N. W. 2d 848 (2010). Evans had conceded, and the court held, that under controlling precedent, burning “other real property” is a lesser included offense under Michigan law, and disproving the greater offense is not required. Id., at 416, 794 N. W. 2d, at 852 (citing People v. Antonelli, 66 Mich. App. 138, 140, 238 N. W. 2d 551, 552 (1975) (on rehearing)). The court thus explained it was “undisputed that the trial court misper-ceived the elements of the offense with which [Evans] was charged and erred by directing a verdict.” 288 Mich. App., at 416, 794 N. W. 2d, at 852. But the court rejected Evans’ argument that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial. Id., at 421-422, 794 N. W. 2d, at 856.
In a divided decision, the Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed. It held that “when a trial court grants a defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the basis of an error of law that did not resolve any factual element of the charged offense, the trial court’s ruling does not constitute an acquittal for the purposes of double jeopardy and retrial is therefore not barred.” 491 Mich., at 4, 810 N. W. 2d, at 536-537.
We granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement among state and federal courts on the question whether retrial is barred when a trial court grants an acquittal because the prosecution had failed to prove an “element” of the offense that, in actuality, it did not have to prove. 567 U. S. 905 (2012). We now reverse.
H-i 8—f
A
In answering this question, we do not write on a clean slate. Quite the opposite. It has been half a century since we first recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial following a court-decreed acquittal, even if the acquittal is “based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.” Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141, 143 (1962) (per curiam). A mistaken acquittal is an acquittal nonetheless, and we have long held that “[a] verdict of acquittal... could not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting [a defendant] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.” United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 671 (1896).
Our cases have applied Fong Foo’s principle broadly. An acquittal is unreviewable whether a judge directs a jury to return a verdict of acquittal, e. g., Fong Foo, 369 U. S., at 143, or forgoes that formality by entering a judgment of acquittal herself. See Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U. S. 462, 467-468 (2005) (collecting cases). And an acquittal precludes retrial even if it is premised upon an erroneous decision to exclude evidence, Sanabria v. United States, 437 U. S. 54, 68-69, 78 (1978); a mistaken understanding of what evidence would suffice to sustain a conviction, Smith, 543 U. S., at 473; or a “misconstruction of the statute” defining the requirements to convict, Rumsey, 467 U. S., at 203, 211; cf. Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U. S. 140, 144-145, n. 7 (1986). In all these circumstances, “the fact that the acquittal may result from erroneous evidentiary rulings or erroneous interpretations of governing legal principles affects the accuracy of that determination, but it does not alter its essential character.” United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 98 (1978) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Most relevant here, our cases have defined an acquittal to encompass any ruling that the prosecution’s proof is insufficient to establish criminal liability for an offense. See ibid., and n. 11; Burks v. United States, 437 U. S. 1, 10 (1978); United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564, 571 (1977). Thus an “acquittal” includes “a ruling by the court that the evidence is insufficient to convict,” a “factual finding [that] necessarily establishes] the criminal defendant's lack of criminal culpability,” and any other “rulin[g] which relate[s] to the ultimate question of guilt or innocence.” Scott, 437 U. S., at 91, 98, and n. 11 (internal quotation marks omitted). These sorts of substantive rulings stand apart from procedural rulings that may also terminate a case midtrial, which we generally refer to as dismissals or mistrials. Procedural dismissals include rulings on questions that “are unrelated to factual guilt or innocence,” but “which serve other purposes,” including “a legal judgment that a defendant, although criminally culpable, may not be punished” because of some problem like an error with the indictment. Id., at 98, and n. 11.
Both procedural dismissals and substantive rulings result in an early end to trial, but we explained in Scott that the double jeopardy consequences of each differ. “[T]he law attaches particular significance to an acquittal,” so a merits-related ruling concludes proceedings absolutely. Id., at 91. This is because “[t]o permit a second trial after an acquittal, however mistaken the acquittal may have been, would present an unacceptably high risk that the Government, with its vastly superior resources, might wear down the defendant so that ‘even though innocent he may be found guilty,’ ” ibid. (quoting Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 188 (1957)). And retrial following an acquittal would upset a defendant’s expectation of repose, for it would subject him to additional “embarrassment, expense and ordeal” while “compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity.” Id., at 187. In contrast, a “termination of the proceedings against [a defendant] on a basis unrelated to factual guilt or innocence of the offense of which he is accused,” 437 U. S., at 98-99, i. e., some procedural ground, does not pose the same concerns, because no expectation of finality attaches to a properly granted mistrial.
Here, “it is plain that the [trial court]... evaluated the [State’s] evidence and determined that it was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Martin Linen, 430 U. S., at 572. The trial court granted Evans’ motion under a rule that requires the court to “direct a verdict of acquittal on any charged offense as to which the evidence is insufficient to support conviction.” Mich. Rule Crim. Proc. 6.419(A) (2012). And the court’s oral ruling leaves no doubt that it made its determination on the basis of “ ‘[t]he testimony’ ” that the State had presented. 491 Mich., at 8, 810 N. W. 2d, at 539. This ruling was not a dismissal on a procedural ground “unrelated to factual guilt or innocence,” like the question of “preindictment delay” in Scott, but rather a determination that the State had failed to prove its case. 437 U. S., at 98, 99. Under our precedents, then, Evans was acquitted.
There is no question the trial court’s ruling was wrong; it was predicated upon a clear misunderstanding of what facts the State needed to prove under state law. But that is of no moment. Martin Linen, Sanabria, Rumsey, Smalis, and Smith all instruct that an acquittal due to insufficient evidence precludes retrial, whether the court’s evaluation of the evidence was “correct or not,” Martin Linen, 430 U. S., at 571, and regardless of whether the court’s decision flowed from an incorrect antecedent ruling of law. Here Evans’ acquittal was the product of an “erroneous interpretation of governing legal principles,” but as in our other cases, that error affects only “the accuracy of [the] determination” to acquit, not “its essential character.” Scott, 437 U. S., at 98 (internal quotation marks omitted).
B
The court below saw things differently. It identified a “constitutionally meaningful difference” between this case and our previous decisions. Those cases, the court found, “involve[d] evidentiary errors regarding the proof needed to establish a factual element of the... crimes at issue,” but still ultimately involved “a resolution regarding the sufficiency of the factual elements of the charged offense.” 491 Mich., at 14-15, 810 N. W. 2d, at 542-543. When a court mistakenly “identified] an extraneous element and dismissed] the case solely on that basis,” however, it has “not resolve[d] or even address[ed] any factual element necessary to establish” the offense. Id., at 15, 20, 810 N. W. 2d, at 543, 546. As a result, the court below reasoned, the case terminates “based on an error of law unrelated to [the] defendant’s guilt or innocence on the elements of the charged offense,” and thus falls outside the definition of an acquittal. Id., at 21, 810 N. W. 2d, at 546.
We fail to perceive the difference. This case, like our previous ones, involves an antecedent legal error that led to an acquittal because the State failed to prove some fact it was not actually required to prove. Consider Rumsey. There the trial court, sitting as sentencer in a capital case involving a murder committed during a robbery, mistakenly held that Arizona’s statutory aggravating factor describing killings for pecuniary gain was limited to murders for hire. Accordingly, it found the State had failed to prove the killing was for pecuniary gain and sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment. After the State successfully appealed and obtained a death sentence on remand, we held that retrial on the penalty phase question was a double jeopardy violation.
The only relevant difference between that situation and this one is that in Rumsey the trial court’s error was called a “misinterpretation” and a “misconstruction of the statute,” 467 U. S., at 207, 211, whereas here the error has been designated the “erroneous addition of [an] extraneous element to the charged offense,” 491 Mich., at 3-4, 810 N. W. 2d, at 536. But we have emphasized that labels do not control our analysis in this context; rather, the substance of a court’s decision does. See Smalis, 476 U. S., at 144, n. 5; Scott, 437 U. S., at 96-97; Martin Linen, 430 U. S., at 571. The error in Rumsey could just as easily have been characterized as the erroneous addition of an element of the statutory aggravating circumstance: that the homicide be a murder-for-hire. Conversely, the error here could be viewed as a misinterpretation of the statute’s phrase “building or other real property” to exclude dwellings. This is far too fine a distinction to be meaningful, and we reject the notion that a defendant’s constitutional rights would turn on the happenstance of how an appellate court chooses to describe a trial court’s error.
Echoing the Michigan Supreme Court, the State and the United States, as well as the dissent, emphasize Martin Linen’s description of an acquittal as the “resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.” 430 U. S., at 571 (emphasis added); see Brief for Respondent 11-17; see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11-15 (hereinafter U. S. Brief); see post, at 336-338. They observe that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against being twice placed in jeopardy for the same “of-fence,” U. S. Const., Arndt. 5, cl. 2, and they note that an offense comprises constituent parts called elements, which are facts that must be proved to sustain a conviction. See, e. g., United States v. Dixon, 509 U. S. 688, 696-697 (1993). Consequently, they argue, only if an actual element of the offense is resolved can it be said that there has been an acquittal of the offense, because “ ‘innocence of the charged offense’ cannot turn on something that is concededly not an element of the offense.” U. S. Brief 15. Because Evans’ trial ended without resolution of even one actual element, they conclude, there was no acquittal.
This argument reads Martin Linen too narrowly, and it is inconsistent with our decisions since then. Our focus in Martin Linen was on the significance of a judicial acquittal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29. The District Court in that case had “evaluated the Government’s evidence and determined that it was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction.” 430 U. S., at 572. That determination of non-culpability was enough to make the acquittal akin to a jury verdict; our holding did not depend upon defining the “elements” of the offense. As we have explained, supra, at 319-320, Scott confirms that the relevant distinction is between judicial determinations that go to “the criminal defendant’s lack of criminal culpability,” and those that hold “that a defendant, although criminally culpable, may not be punished because of a supposed” procedural error. 437 U. S., at 98. Culpability (i. e., the “ultimate question of guilt or innocence”) is the touchstone, not whether any particular elements were resolved or whether the determination of non-culpability was legally correct. Ibid., n. 11 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Perhaps most inconsistent with the State’s and United States’ argument is Burks. There we held that when a defendant raises insanity as a defense, and a court decides the “Government ha[s] failed to come forward with sufficient proof of [the defendant’s] capacity to be responsible for criminal acts,” the defendant has been acquitted because the court decided that “criminal culpability ha[s] not been established.” 437 U. S., at 10. Lack of insanity was not an “element” of Burks’ offense, bank robbery by use of a dangerous weapon. See 18 U. S. C. § 2113(d) (1976 ed.). Rather, insanity was an affirmative defense to criminal liability. Our conclusion thus depended upon equating a judicial acquittal with an order finding insufficient evidence of culpability, not insufficient evidence of any particular element of the offense.
In the end, this case follows those that have come before it. The trial court’s judgment of acquittal resolved the question of Evans’ guilt or innocence as a matter of the sufficiency of the evidence, not on unrelated procedural grounds. That judgment, “however erroneous” it was, precludes re-prosecution on this charge, and so should have barred the State’s appeal as well. Sanabria, 437 U. S., at 69.
H-Í f—1 1—1
A
The State, supported by the United States, offers three other reasons why the distinction drawn by the court below should be maintained. None persuades us.
To start, the State argues that unless an actual element of the offense is resolved by the trial court, the only way to know whether the court’s ruling was an “acquittal” is to rely upon the label used by the court, which would wrongly allow the form of the trial court’s action to control. Brief for Respondent 17-18, 21-22. We disagree. Our decision turns not on the form of the trial court’s action, but rather whether it “serve[s]” substantive “purposes” or procedural ones. Scott, 437 U. S., at 98, n. 11. If a trial court were to announce, midtrial, “The defendant shall be acquitted because he was prejudiced by preindictment delay,” the Double Jeopardy Clause would pose no barrier to reprosecution, notwithstanding the “acquittal” label. Cf. Scott, 437 U. S. 82. Here we know the trial court acquitted Evans, not because it incanted the word “acquit” (which it did not), but because it acted on its view that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
Next, the State and the United States fear that if the grounds for an acquittal are untethered from the actual elements of the offense, a trial court could issue an unreviewable order finding insufficient evidence to convict for any reason at all, such as that the prosecution failed to prove “that the structure burned [was] blue.” Brief for Respondent 16-17; U. S. Brief 15. If the concern is that there is no limit to the magnitude of the error that could yield an acquittal, the response is that we have long held as much. See supra, at 318. If the concern is instead that our holding will make it easier for courts to insulate from review acquittals that are granted as a form of nullification, see Brief for Respondent 30, n. 58, we reject the premise. We presume here, as in other contexts, that courts exercise their duties in good faith. Cf. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. 86, 103 (2011).
Finally, the State suggests that because Evans induced the trial court’s error, he should not be heard to complain when that error is corrected and the State wishes to retry him. Brief for Respondent 32-33; cf. id., at 5-9. But we have recognized that “most [judgments of acquittal] result from defense motions,” so “[t]o hold that a defendant waives his double jeopardy protection whenever a trial court error in his favor on a midtrial motion leads to an acquittal would undercut the adversary assumption on which our system of criminal justice rests, and would vitiate one of the fundamental rights established by the Fifth Amendment.” Sanabria, 437 U. S., at 78 (citation omitted). It is true that when a defendant persuades the court to declare a mistrial, jeopardy continues and retrial is generally allowed. See United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S. 600 (1976). But in such circumstances the defendant consents to a disposition that contemplates reprosecution, whereas when a defendant moves for acquittal he does not. See Sanabria, 437 U. S., at 75.
The United States makes a related argument. It contends that Evans could have asked the court to resolve whether nondwelling status is an element of the offense before jeopardy attached, so having elected to wait until trial was underway to raise the point, he cannot now claim a double jeopardy violation. U. S. Brief 22-25. The Government relies upon Lee v. United States, 432 U. S. 23 (1977), in which the District Court dismissed an indictment midtrial because it had failed to allege the required intent element of the offense. We held that retrial on a corrected indictment was not barred, because the dismissal was akin to a mistrial, not an acquittal. This was clear because the District Court had separately denied the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, explaining that the defendant “‘has been proven [guilty] beyond any reasonable doubt in the world/” while acknowledging that the error in the indictment required dismissal. Id., at 26-27. Because the defendant “invited the court to interrupt the proceedings before formalizing a finding on the merits” by raising the indictment issue so late, we held the principles governing a defendant’s consent to mistrial should apply. Id., at 28 (citing Dinitz, 424 U. S. 600).
The Government suggests the situation here is “functionally similar,” because “identifying the elements of an offense is a necessary step in determining the sufficiency of a charging document.” U. S. Brief 23. But we cannot ignore the fact that what the trial court actually did here was rule on the sufficiency of the State’s proof, not the sufficiency of the information filed against him. Lee demonstrates that the two need not rise or fall together. And even if the Government is correct that Evans could have challenged the charging document on the same legal theory he used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, it matters that he made only the latter motion, a motion that necessarily may not be made until trial is underway. Evans cannot be penalized for requesting from the court a ruling on the merits of the State’s case, as the Michigan Rules entitled him to do; whether he could have also brought a distinct procedural objection earlier on is beside the point.
B
In the alternative, the State and the United States ask us to reconsider our past decisions. Brief for Respondent 34-56 (suggesting overruling our cases since at least Fong Foo); U. S. Brief 27-32 (suggesting overruling Smith, Rumsey, and Smalis). We declined to revisit our cases when the United States made a similar request in Smalis. 476 U. S., at 144; see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Smalis v. Pennsylvania, O. T. 1985, No. 85-227, pp. 19-25. And we decline to do so here.
First, we have no reason to believe the existing rules have become so “unworkable” as to justify overruling precedent. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827 (1991). The distinction drawn in Scott has stood the test of time, and we expect courts will continue to have little “difficulty in distinguishing between those rulings which relate to the ultimate question of guilt or innocence and those which serve other purposes.” 437 U. S., at 98, n. 11 (internal quotation marks omitted). See, e. g., United States v. Dionisio, 503 F. 3d 78, 83-88 (CA2 2007) (collecting cases); 6 W. LaFave, J. Israel, N. King, & O. Kerr, Criminal Procedure § 25.3(a), p. 629 (3d ed. 2007) (same).
Second, the logic of these cases still holds. There is no question that a jury verdict of acquittal precludes retrial, and thus bars appeal of any legal error that may have led to that acquittal. See Ball, 163 U. S., at 671. So, had the trial court here instructed the jury that it must find the burned structure was not a dwelling in order to convict, the jury would have acquitted Evans accordingly; “‘[a] jury is presumed to follow its instructions.’” Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U. S. 599, 606 (2012) (quoting Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U. S. 225, 234 (2000)). And that would have been the end of the matter. From that premise, Fong Foo’s holding follows: If a trial court instead exercises its discretion to direct a jury to return a verdict of acquittal, jeopardy also terminates notwithstanding any legal error, because there too it is the jury that returns an acquittal. And from there, Martin Linen’s conclusion is unavoidable: It should make no difference whether the court employs the formality of directing the jury to return an acquittal or whether the court enters an acquittal itself. Sanabria, Rumsey, Smalis, and Smith merely apply Fong Foo and Martin Linen in tandem: If a trial court makes an antecedent legal error (as in Fong Foo), and then grants a judgment of acquittal rather than directing the jury to acquit (as in Martin Linen), the result is an acquittal all the same.
In other words, there is no way for antecedent legal errors to be reviewable in the context of judicial acquittals unless those errors are also reviewable when they give rise to jury acquittals (contrary to the settled understanding that a jury verdict of acquittal is unreviewable), or unless we distinguish between juries that acquit pursuant to their instructions and judicial acquittals (notwithstanding that this is a purely formal distinction). Neither option has become more attractive with time. We therefore reiterate: “[A]ny contention that the Double Jeopardy Clause must itself... leave open a way of correcting legal errors is at odds with the well-established rule that the bar will attach to a preverdict acquittal that is patently wrong in law.” Smith, 543 U. S., at 473.
Finally, the State and the United States object that this rule denies the prosecution a full and fair opportunity to present its evidence to the jury, while the defendant reaps a “windfall” from the trial court’s unreviewable error. Brief for Respondent 6; U. S. Brief 31-32. But sovereigns are hardly powerless to prevent this sort of situation, as we observed in Smith, 543 U. S., at 474. Nothing obligates a jurisdiction to afford its trial courts the power to grant a mid-trial acquittal, and at least two States disallow the practice. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.381(1) (2011); State v. Parfait, 96-1814 (La. App. 1 Cir. 05/09/97), 693 So. 2d 1232,1242. Many jurisdictions, including the federal system, allow or encourage their courts to defer consideration of a motion to acquit until after the jury returns a verdict, which mitigates double jeopardy concerns. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29(b). And for cases such as this, in which a trial court’s interpretation of the relevant criminal statute is likely to prove dispositive, we see no reason why jurisdictions could not provide for mandatory continuances or expedited interlocutory appeals if they wished to prevent misguided acquittals from being entered. But having chosen to vest its courts with the power to grant midtrial acquittals, the State must bear the corresponding risk that some acquittals will be granted in error.
* * *
We hold that Evans’ trial ended in an acquittal when the trial court ruled the State had failed to produce sufficient evidence of his guilt. The Double Jeopardy Clause thus bars retrial for his offense and should have barred the State’s appeal. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan is
Reversed.
Michigan Comp. Laws §750.72 (1981), “Burning dwelling house,” provides: “Any person who wilfully or maliciously burns any dwelling house, either occupied or unoccupied, or the contents thereof, whether owned by himself or another, or any building within the curtilage of such dwelling house, or the contents thereof, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 20 years.”
And §750.73, “Burning of other real property,” provides: “Any person who wilfully or maliciously burns any building or other real property, or the contents thereof, other than those specified in the next preceding section of this chapter, the property of himself or another, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years.”
In other words, the pattern jury instructions were incorrect. The State later revised them. See 288 Mich. App. 410, 416, n. 3, 794 N. W. 2d 848, 852, n. 3 (2010).
Compare 491 Mich. 1, 810 N. W. 2d 535 (2012) (case below), and State v. Korsen, 138 Idaho 706, 716-717, 69 P. 3d 126, 136-137 (2003) (same conclusion), and United States v. Maker, 751 F. 2d 614, 624 (CA3 1984) (same), with Carter v. State, 365 Ark. 224, 228, 227 S. W. 3d 895, 898 (2006) (rejecting this distinction), and State v. Lynch, 79 N. J. 327, 337-343, 399 A. 2d 629, 634-637 (1979) (holding double jeopardy barred retrial after trial court erroneously required extra element).
Under Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U. S. 430 (1981), a capital defendant is “acquitted” of the death penalty if, at the end of a separate sentencing proceeding, the factfinder concludes that the prosecution has failed to prove required additional facts to support a sentence of death. Thus in Rumsey, the trial court’s initial “judgment, based on findings sufficient to establish legal entitlement to the life sentence, amounts to an acquittal on the merits and, as such, bars any retrial of the appropriateness of the death penalty.” 467 U. S., at 211.
Indeed, it is possible that this is what the trial court thought it was doing, not articulating an additional element. The statute criminalizes burning “any building or other real property,... other than those specified in” the previous section, which criminalizes the burning of a dwelling house. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.73. In light of the statute’s phrasing, the trial court interpreted “building or other real property” to be exclusive of the type of property described in §750.72, although the Michigan courts have explained that the term is actually meant to be inclusive. So the trial court decision could be viewed as having given the statutory “building” element an unduly narrow construction (by limiting it to nondwell-ings), just as the trial court in Rumsey gave the pecuniary-gain provision an unduly narrow construction (by limiting it to contract killings). Nevertheless, we accept the parties’ and the Michigan courts’ alternative characterization of the trial court’s error as the “addition” of an extraneous element. Our observation simply underscores how malleable the distinction adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court, and defended by the State and the United States, can be. And it belies the dissent’s suggestion, post, at 340 (opinion of Alito, J.), that drawing this distinction is “quite easy” here, and that the basis for the trial court’s ruling could not be subject to “real dispute.”
To account for Burks, the United States posits that, “[a]s used in [its] brief, the ‘elements’ of an offense encompass legally recognized defenses that would negate culpability.” U. S. Brief 11, n. 3. So too would the dissent hold that, “as used in this opinion, the ‘elements’ of an offense include legally recognized affirmative defenses that would negate culpability.” Post, at 337, n. 2. Rather than adopt a novel definition of the word “element” to mean “elements and affirmative defenses,” and then promptly limit that novel definition to these circumstances, we prefer to read Burks for what it says, which is that the issue is whether the bottom-line question of “criminal culpability” was resolved. 437 U. S., at 10.
The dissent says that “defense counsel fooled the judge,” post, at 335, but surely that charge is not fair. Nothing suggests counsel exceeded the permissible bounds of zealous advocacy on behalf of his client. Counsel presented a colorable legal argument, and marshaled persuasive authority: Michigan’s own criminal jury instructions, which, at the time, supported his position. See supra, at 316, 317, n. 2.
The dissent’s true gripe may be with these cases as well, rather than our result here, which, we have explained, follows inevitably from them. See post, at 334 (noting “how far [our cases] have departed from the common-law principles that applied at the time of the founding”); compare post, at 341 (“Permitting retrial in these egregious eases is especially appropriate”), with Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141, 143 (1962) (per curiam) (according finality to even those acquittals “based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation”).
If a court grants a motion to acquit after the jury has convicted, there is no double jeopardy barrier to an appeal by the government from the court’s acquittal, because reversal would result in reinstatement of the jury verdict of guilt, not a new trial. United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332 (1975).
Here, the prosecutor twice asked the court for a recess to review the Michigan statutes and to discuss the question with her supervisor. 491
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a direct appeal under § 2 of the Expediting Act from a judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, dismissing the Government’s action brought in 1949 under § 15 of the Clayton Act. The complaint alleged a violation of § 7 of the Act resulting from the purchase by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in 1917-1919 of a 23% stock interest in General Motors Corporation. This appeal is from the dismissal of the action as to du Pont, General Motors and the corporate holders of large amounts of du Pont stock, Chris-tiana Securities Corporation and Delaware Realty & Investment Company.
The primary issue is whether du Pont’s commanding position as General Motors’ supplier of automotive finishes and fabrics was achieved on competitive merit alone, or because its acquisition of the General Motors’ stock, and the consequent close intercompany relationship, led to the insulation of most of the General Motors’ market from free competition, with the resultant likelihood, at the time of suit, of the creation of a monopoly of a line of commerce.
The first paragraph of § 7, pertinent here, provides:
“That no corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where the effect of such acquisition may be to substantially lessen competition between the corporation whose stock is so acquired and the corporation making the acquisition, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce.”
Section 7 is designed to arrest in its incipiency not only the substantial lessening of competition from the acquisition by one corporation of the whole or any part of the stock of a competing corporation, but also to arrest in their incipiency restraints or monopolies in a relevant market which, as a reasonable probability, appear at the time of suit likely to result from the acquisition by one corporation of all or any part of the stock of any other corporation. The section is violated whether or not actual restraints or monopolies, or the substantial lessening of competition, have occurred or are intended. Acquisitions solely for investment are excepted, but only if, and so long as, the stock is not used by voting or otherwise to bring about, or in attempting to bring about, the substantial lessening of competition.
We are met at the threshold with the argument that § 7, before its amendment in 1950, applied only to an acquisition of the stock of a competing corporation, and not to an acquisition by a supplier corporation of the stock of a customer corporation — in other words, that the statute applied only to horizontal and not to vertical acquisitions. This is the first case presenting the question in this Court. International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 280 U. S. 291, and Thatcher Mfg. Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 272 U. S. 554, involved corporate acquisitions of stock of competitors.
During the 35 years before this action was brought, the Government did not invoke § 7 against vertical acquisitions. The Federal Trade Commission has said that the section did not apply to vertical acquisitions. See F. T. C., Report on Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions, 168 (1955), H. R. Doc. No. 169, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. Also, the House Committee considering the 1950 revision of § 7 stated that “... it has been thought by some that this legislation [the 1914 Act] applies only to the so-called horizontal mergers....” H. R. Rep. No. 1191, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 11. The House Report adds, however, that the 1950 amendment was purposed “... to make it clear that the bill applies to all types of mergers and acquisitions, vertical and conglomerate as well as horizontal... (Emphasis added.)
This Court has the duty to reconcile administrative interpretations with the broad antitrust policies laid down by Congress. Cf. Automatic Canteen Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 346 U. S. 61, 74. The failure of the Commission to act is not a binding administrative interpretation that Congress did not intend vertical acquisitions to come within the purview of the Act. Accord, Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Jackson, 353 U. S. 325, 331.
The first paragraph of § 7, written in the disjunctive, plainly is framed to reach not only the corporate acquisition of stock of a competing corporation, where the effect may be substantially to lessen competition between them, but also the corporate acquisition of stock of any corporation, competitor or not, where the effect may be either (1) to restrain commerce in any section or community, or (2) tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce. The amended complaint does not allege that the effect of du Pont’s acquisition may be to restrain commerce in any section or community but alleges that the effect was “... to tend to create a monopoly in particular lines of commerce....”
Section 7 contains a second paragraph dealing with a holding company’s acquisition of stock in two or more corporations. Much of the legislative history of the section deals with the alleged holding company evil. This history does not aid in interpretation because our concern here is with the first paragraph of the section. There is, however, pertinent legislative history which does aid and support our construction.
Senator Chilton, one of the Senate managers of the bill, explained that the House conferees insisted that to prohibit just the acquisitions where the effect was “substantially” to lessen competition would not accomplish the designed aim of the statute, because “a corporation might acquire the stock of another corporation, and there would be no lessening of competition, but the tendency might be to create monopoly or to restrain trade or commerce.” “Therefore,” said Senator Chil-ton, “there was added... the following: ‘Or to restrain such commerce in any section or community or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce.' ” This construction of the section, as embracing three separate and distinct effects of a stock acquisition, has also been recognized by a number of federal courts.
We hold that any acquisition by one corporation of all or any part of the stock of another corporation, competitor or not, is within the reach of the section whenever the reasonable likelihood appears that the acquisition will result in a restraint of commerce or in the creation of a monopoly of any line of commerce. Thus, although du Pont and General Motors are not competitors, a violation of the section has occurred if, as a result of the acquisition, there was at the time of suit a reasonable likelihood of a monopoly of any line of commerce. Judge Maris correctly stated in Transamerica Corp. v. Board of Governors, 206 F. 2d 163, 169:
“A monopoly involves the power to... exclude competition when the monopolist desires to do so. Obviously, under Section 7 it was not necessary... to find that... [the defendant] has actually achieved monopoly power but merely that the stock acquisitions under attack have brought it measurably closer to that end. For it is the purpose of the Clayton Act to nip monopoly in the bud. Since by definition monopoly involves the power to eliminate competition a lessening of competition is clearly relevant in the determination of the existence of a tendency to monopolize. Accordingly in order to determine the existence of a tendency to monopoly in.. : any... line of business the area or areas of existing effective competition in which monopoly power might be exercised must first be determined....”
Appellees argue that there exists no basis for a finding of a probable restraint or monopoly within the meaning of § 7 because the total General Motors market for finishes and fabrics constituted only a negligible percentage of the total market for these materials for all uses, including automotive uses. It is stated in the General Motors brief that in 1947 du Pont's finish sales to General Motors constituted 3.5% of all sales of finishes to industrial users, and that its fabrics sales to General Motors comprised 1.6% of the total market for the type of fabric used by the automobile industry.
Determination of the relevant market is a necessary predicate to a finding of a violation of the Clayton Act because the threatened monopoly must be one which will substantially lessen competition “within the area of effective competition.” Substantiality can be determined only in terms of the market affected. The record shows that automotive finishes and fabrics have sufficient peculiar characteristics and uses to constitute them products sufficiently distinct from all other finishes and fabrics to make them a “line of commerce” within the meaning of the Clayton Act. Cf. Van Camp & Sons Co. v. American Can Co., 278 U. S. 245. Thus, the bounds of the relevant market for the purposes of this case are not coextensive with the total market for finishes and fabrics, but are coextensive with the automobile industry, the relevant market for automotive finishes and fabrics.
The market affected must be substantial. Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston Co., 258 U. S. 346, 357. Moreover, in order to establish a violation of § 7 the Government must prove a likelihood that competition may be “foreclosed in a substantial share of... [that market].” Both requirements are satisfied in this case. The substantiality of a relevant market comprising the automobile industry is undisputed. The substantiality of General Motors’ share of that market is fully established in the evidence.
General Motors is the colossus of the giant automobile industry. It accounts annually for upwards of two-fifths of the total sales of automotive vehicles in the Nation. In 1955 General Motors ranked first in sales and second in assets among all United States industrial corporations and became the first corporation to earn over a billion dollars in annual net income. In 1947 General Motors’ total purchases of all products from du Pont were $26,628,274, of which $18,938,229 (71%) represented purchases from du Pont’s Finishes Division. Of the latter amount purchases of “Duco” and the thinner used to apply “Duco” totaled $12,224,798 (65%), and “Dulux” purchases totaled $3,179,225. Purchases by General Motors of du Pont fabrics in 1948 amounted to $3,700,000, making it the largest account of du Pont’s Fabrics Division. Expressed in percentages, du Pont supplied 67% of General Motors’ requirements for finishes in 1946 and 68% in 1947. In fabrics du Pont supplied 52.3% of requirements in 1946, and 38.5% in 1947. Because General Motors accounts for almost one-half of the automobile industry’s annual sales, its requirements for automotive finishes and fabrics must represent approximately one-half of the relevant market for these materials. Because the record clearly shows that quantitatively and percentagewise du Pont supplies the largest part of General Motors’ requirements, we must conclude that du Pont has a substantial share of the relevant market.
The appellees argue that the Government could not maintain this action in 1949 because § 7 is applicable only to the acquisition of stock and not to the holding or subsequent use of the stock. This argument misconceives the objective toward which § 7 is directed. The Clayton Act was intended to supplement the Sherman Act. Its aim was primarily to arrest apprehended consequences of intercorporate relationships before those relationships could work their evil, which may be at or any time after the acquisition, depending upon the circumstances of the particular case. The Senate declared the objective of the Clayton Act to be as follows:
“... Broadly stated, the bill, in its treatment of unlawful restraints and monopolies, seeks to prohibit and make unlawful certain trade practices which, as a rule, singly and in themselves, are not covered by the Act of July 2, 1890 [the Sherman Act], or other existing antitrust acts, and thus, by making these practices illegal, to arrest the creation of trusts, conspiracies, and monopolies in their incipiency and before consummation....” S. Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 1. (Emphasis added.)
“Incipiency” in this context denotes not the time the stock was acquired, but any time when the acquisition threatens to ripen into a prohibited effect. See Transamerica Corp. v. Board of Governors, 206 F. 2d 163, 166. To accomplish the congressional aim, the Government may proceed at any time that an acquisition may be said with reasonable probability to contain a threat that it may lead to a restraint of commerce or tend to create a monopoly of a line of commerce. Even when the purchase is solely for investment, the plain language of § 7 contemplates an action at any time the stock is used to bring about, or in attempting to bring about, the substantial lessening of competition.
Prior cases under § 7 were brought at or near the time of acquisition. See, e. g., International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 280 U. S. 291; V. Vivaudou, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 54 F. 2d 273; Federal Trade Comm’n v. Thatcher Mfg. Co., 5 F. 2d 615, rev’d in part on another ground, 272 U. S. 554; United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 11 F. Supp. 117; In re Vanadium-Alloys Steel Co., 18 F. T. C. 194. None of these cases holds, or even suggests, that the Government is foreclosed from bringing the action at any time when a threat of the prohibited effects is evident.
Related to this argument is the District Court’s conclusion that 30 years of nonrestraint negated “any reasonable probability of such a restraint” at the time of the suit. While it is, of course, true that proof of a mere possibility of a prohibited restraint or tendency to monopoly will not establish the statutory requirement that the effect of an acquisition “may be” such restraint or tendency, the basic facts found by the District Court demonstrate the error of its conclusion.
The du Pont Company’s commanding position as a General Motors supplier was not achieved until shortly after its purchase of a sizable block of General Motors stock in 1917. At that time its production for the automobile industry and its sales to General Motors were relatively insignificant. General Motors then produced only about 11% of the total automobile production and its requirements, while relatively substantial, were far short of the proportions they assumed as it forged ahead to its present place in the industry.
At least 10 years before the stock acquisition, the du Pont Company, for over a century the manufacturer of military and commercial explosives, had decided to expand its business into other fields. It foresaw the loss of its market for explosives after the United States Army and Navy decided in 1908 to construct and operate their own plants. Nitrocellulose, a nitrated cotton, was the principal raw material used in du Pont’s manufacture of smokeless powder. A search for outlets for this raw material uncovered requirements in the manufacture of lacquers, celluloid, artificial leather and artificial silk. The first step taken was the du Pont purchase in 1910 of the Fabrikoid Company, then the largest manufacturer of artificial leather, reconstituted as the du Pont Fabrikoid Company in 1913.
The expansion program was barely started, however, when World War I intervened. The du Pont Company suddenly found itself engulfed with orders for military explosives from foreign nations later to be allies of the United States in the war, and it had to increase its capacity and plant facilities from 700,000 to 37,000,000 pounds per month at a cost exceeding $200,000,000. Profits accumulated and ultimately amounted to $232,-000,000. The need to find postwar uses for its expanded facilities and organization now being greater than ever, du Pont continued its expansion program during the war years, setting aside $90,000,000 for the purpose. In September 1915, du Pont bought the Arlington Works, one of the Nation’s two largest celluloid companies. In June 1916, the Fairfield Rubber Company, producers of rubber-coated fabrics for automobile and carriage tops, was taken over by du Pont Fabrikoid. In March 1917, purchase was made of Harrison Brothers and Company, manufacturers of paint, varnish, acids and certain inorganic chemicals used in paint manufacture. Shortly afterwards, Harrison absorbed Beckton Chemical Company, a color manufacturer, and, also in 1917, the Bridgeport Wood Finishing Company, a varnish manufacturer.
Thus, before the first block of General Motors stock was acquired, du Pont was seeking markets not only for its nitrocellulose, but also for the artificial leather, celluloid, rubber-coated goods, and paints and varnishes in demand by automobile companies. In that connection, the trial court expressly found that..• reports and other documents written at or near the time of the investment show that du Pont’s representatives were well aware that General Motors was a large consumer of products of the kind offered by du Pont,” and that John J. Raskob, du Pont’s treasurer and the principal promoter of the investment, “for one, thought that du Pont would ultimately get all that business....”
The Company’s interest in buying into General Motors was stimulated by Raskob and Pierre S. du Pont, then du Pont’s president, who acquired personal holdings of General Motors stock in 1914. General Motors was organized six years earlier by William C. Durant to acquire previously independent automobile manufacturing companies — Buick, Cadillac, Oakland and Oldsmobile.'Durant later brought in Chevrolet, organized by him when he was temporarily out of power, during 1910-1915, and a bankers’ group controlled General Motors. In 1915, when Durant and the bankers deadlocked on the choice of a Board of Directors, they resolved the deadlock by an agreement under which Pierre S. du Pont was named Chairman of the General Motors Board, and Pierre S. du Pont, Raskob and two nominees of Mr. du Pont were named neutral directors. By 1916, Durant settled his differences with the bankers and resumed the presidency and his controlling position in General Motors. He prevailed upon Pierre S. du Pont and Raskob to continue their interest in General Motors’ affairs, which both did as members of the Finance Committee, working closely with Durant in matters of finances and operations and plans for future expansion. Durant persistently urged both men and the “Wilmington people, as he called it,” to buy more stock in General Motors.
Finally, Raskob broached to Pierre S. du Pont the proposal that part of the fund earmarked for du Pont expansion be used in the purchase of General Motors stock. At this time about $50,000,000 of the $90,000,000 fund was still in hand. Raskob foresaw the success of the automobile industry and the opportunity for great profit in a substantial purchase of General Motors stock. On December 19, 1917, Raskob submitted a Treasurer’s Report to the du Pont Finance Committee recommending a purchase of General Motors stock in the amount of $25,000,000. That report makes clear that more than just a profitable investment was contemplated. A major consideration was that an expanding General Motors would provide a substantial market needed by the burgeoning du Pont organization. Raskob’s summary of reasons in support of the purchase includes this statement: “Our interest in the General Motors Company will undoubtedly secure for us the entire Fabrikoid, Pyralin [celluloid], paint and varnish business of those companies, which is a substantial factor.” (Emphasis added.)
This thought, that the purchase would result in du Pont’s obtaining a new and substantial market, was echoed in the Company’s 1917 and 1918 annual reports to stockholders. In the 1917 report appears: “Though this is a new line of activity, it is one of great promise and one that seems to be well suited to the character of our organization. The motor companies are very large consumers of our Fabrikoid and Pyralin as well as paints and varnishes.” (Emphasis added.) The 1918 report says: “The consumption of paints, varnishes and fabrikoid in the manufacture of automobiles gives another common interest.”
This background of the acquisition, particularly the plain implications of the contemporaneous documents, destroys any basis for a conclusion that the purchase was made “solely for investment.” Moreover, immediately after the acquisition, du Pont’s influence growing out of it was brought to bear within General Motors to achieve primacy for du Pont as General Motors’ supplier of automotive fabrics and finishes.
Two years were to pass before du Pont’s total purchases of General Motors stock brought its percentage to 23% of the outstanding stock and its aggregate outlay to $49,000,000. During that period, du Pont and Durant worked under an arrangement giving du Pont primary responsibility for finances and Durant the responsibility for operations. But J. A. Haskell, du Pont’s former sales manager and vice-president, became the General Motors vice-president in charge of the operations committee. The trial judge said that Haskell “... was willing to undertake the responsibility of keeping du Pont informed of General Motors affairs during Durant’s regime...
Haskell frankly and openly set about gaining the maximum share of the General Motors market for du Pont. In a contemporaneous 1918 document, he reveals his intention to “pave the way for perhaps a more general adoption of our material,” and that he was thinking “how best to get cooperation [from the several General Motors Divisions] whereby makers of such of the low priced cars as it would seem possible and wise to get transferred will be put in the frame of mind necessary for its adoption [du Pont’s artificial leather].”
Haskell set up lines of communication within General Motors to be in a position to know at all times what du Pont products and what products of du Pont competitors were being used. It is not pure imagination to suppose that such surveillance from that source made an impressive impact upon purchasing officials. It would be understandably difficult for them not to interpret it as meaning that a preference was to be given to du Pont products. Haskell also actively pushed the program to substitute Fabrikoid artificial leathers for genuine leather and sponsored use of du Pont’s Pyralin sheeting through a liaison arrangement set up between himself and the du Pont sales organization.
Thus sprung from the barrier, du Pont quickly swept into a commanding lead over its competitors, who were never afterwards in serious contention. Indeed, General Motors’ then principal paint supplier, Flint Varnish and Chemical Works, early in 1918 saw the handwriting on the wall. The Flint president came to Durant asking to be bought out, telling Durant, as the trial judge found, that he “knew du Pont had bought a substantial interest in General Motors and was interested in the paint industry; that... [he] felt he would lose a valuable customer, General Motors.” The du Pont Company-bought the Flint Works and later dissolved it.
In less than four years, by August 1921, Lammot du Pont, then a du Pont vice-president and later Chairman of the Board of General Motors, in response to a query from Pierre S. du Pont, then Chairman of the Board of both du Pont and General Motors, “whether General Motors was taking its entire requirements of du Pont products from du Pont,” was able to reply that four of General Motors’ eight operating divisions bought from du Pont their entire requirements of paints and varnishes, five their entire requirements of Fabrikoid, four their entire requirements of rubber cloth, and seven their entire requirements of Pyralin and celluloid. Lammot du Pont quoted du Pont’s sales department as feeling that “the condition is improving and that eventually satisfactory conditions will be established in every branch, but they wouldn’t mind seeing things going a little faster.” Pierre S. du Pont responded that “with the change in management at Cadillac, Oakland and Olds [Cadillac was taking very little paints and varnishes, and Oakland but 50%; Olds was taking only part of its requirements for fabrikoid], I believe that you should be able to sell substantially all of the paint, varnish and fabrikoid products needed.” He also suggested that “a drive should be made for the Fisher Body business. Is there any reason why they have not dealt with us?”
Fisher Body was stubbornly resistant to du Pont sales pressure. General Motors, in 1920, during Durant’s time, acquired 60% stock control of Fisher Body Company. However, a voting trust was established giving the Fisher brothers broad powers of management. They insisted on running their own show and for years withstood efforts of high-ranking du Pont and General Motors executives to get them to switch to du Pont from their accustomed sources of supply. Even after General Motors obtained 100% stock control in 1926, the Fisher brothers retained sufficient power to hold out. By 1947 and 1948, however, Fisher resistance had collapsed, and the proportions of its requirements supplied by du Pont compared favorably with the purchases by other General Motors Divisions.
In 1926, the du Pont officials felt that too much General Motors business was going to its competitors. When Pierre S. du Pont and Raskob expressed surprise, Lam-mot du Pont gave them a breakdown, by dollar amounts, of the purchases made from du Pont’s competitors. This breakdown showed, however, that only Fisher Body of the General Motors divisions was obtaining any substantial proportion of its requirements from du Pont’s competitors.
Competitors did obtain higher percentages of the General Motors business in later years, although never high enough at any time substantially to affect the dollar amount of du Pont’s sales. Indeed, it appears likely that General Motors probably turned to outside sources of supply at least in part because its requirements outstripped du Pont’s production, when General Motors’ proportion of total automobile sales grew greater and the company took its place as the sales leader of the automobile industry. For example, an undisputed Government exhibit shows that General Motors took 93% of du Pont’s automobile Duco production in 1941 and 83% in 1947.
The fact that sticks out in this voluminous record is that the bulk of du Pont’s production has always supplied the largest part of the requirements of the one customer in the automobile industry connected to du Pont by a stock interest. The inference is overwhelming that du Pont’s commanding position was promoted by its stock interest and was not gained solely on competitive merit.
We agree with the trial court that considerations of price, quality and service were not overlooked by either du Pont or General Motors. Pride in its products and its high financial stake in General Motors’ success would naturally lead du Pont to try to supply the best. But the wisdom of this business judgment cannot obscure the fact, plainly revealed by the record, that du Pont purposely employed its stock to pry open the General Motors market to entrench itself as the primary supplier of General Motors’ requirements for automotive finishes and fabrics.
Similarly, the fact that all concerned in high executive posts in both companies acted honorably and fairly, each in the honest conviction that his actions were in the best interests of his own company and without any design to overreach anyone, including du Pont’s competitors, does not defeat the Government’s right to relief. It is not requisite to the proof of a violation of § 7 to show that restraint or monopoly was intended.
The statutory policy of fostering free competition is obviously furthered when no supplier has an advantage over his competitors from an acquisition of his customer’s stock likely to have the effects condemned by the statute. We repeat, that the test of a violation of § 7 is whether, at the time of suit, there is a reasonable probability that the acquisition is likely to result in the condemned restraints. The conclusion upon this record is inescapable that such likelihood was proved as to this acquisition. The fire that was kindled in 1917 continues to smolder. It burned briskly to forge the ties that bind the General Motors market to du Pont, and if it has quieted down, it remains hot, and, from past performance, is likely at any time to blaze and make the fusion complete.
The judgment must therefore be reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court for a determination, after further hearing, of the equitable relief necessary and appropriate in the public interest to eliminate the effects of the acquisition offensive to the statute. The District Courts, in the framing of equitable decrees, are clothed “with large discretion to model their judgments to fit the exigencies of the particular case.” International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392, 400-401.
The motion of the appellees Christiana Securities Company and Delaware Realty and Investment Company for dismissal of the appeal as to them is denied. It seems appropriate that they be retained as parties pending determination by the District Court of the relief to be granted.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29. The Court noted probable jurisdiction. 350 U. S. 815.
126 F. Supp. 235.
38 Stat. 736, 15 ü. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 25.
This action is governed by the Clayton Act as it was before the 1950 amendments, which by their terms are inapplicable to acquisitions prior to 1950. 64 Stat. 1125, 15 U. S. C. ■§ 18.
The amended complaint also alleged violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 50 Stat. 693, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2. In view of our determination of the case, we are not deciding the Government’s appeal from the dismissal of the action under the Sherman Act.
38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 18.
This paragraph provides:
“No corporation shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of two or more corporations engaged in commerce where the effect of such acquisition, or the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be to substantially lessen competition between such corporations, or any of them, whose stock or other share capital is so acquired, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce.” 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 18.
See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 13; H. R. Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 17.
51 Cong. Rec. 16002.
Aluminum Co. of America v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 284 F. 401; Ronald Fabrics Co. v. Verney Brunswick Mills, Inc., CCH Trade Cases ¶ 57,514 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1946); United States v. New England Fish Exchange, 258 F. 732; cf. Transamerica Corp. v. Board of Governors, 206 F. 2d 163; Sidney Morris & Co. v. National Assn, of Stationers, 40 F. 2d 620, 625.
Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, 299, n. 5. Section 3 of the Act, with which the Court was concerned in Standard Oil, makes unlawful certain agreements. where the effect... may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce." 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 14. (Emphasis added.)
For example, the following is said as to finishes in the du Pont brief:
“The largest single finish item which du Pont sells to General Motors is a low-viscosity nitrocellulose lacquer, discovered and patented by du Pont and for which its trademark is ‘Duco’....
“The invention and development of ‘Duco’ represented a truly significant advance in the art of paint making and in the production of automobiles; without ‘Duco’ mass production of automobiles would not have been possible.
“By the early 1920’s the need for better finishing materials for automobiles had become urgent.... The varnish method then used in finishing automobiles was described in detail at the trial by automobile pioneers.... Finishing an automobile with varnish required an intolerably long time — up to 3 or 4 weeks — to apply the numerous coats needed. When the finish was complete, its longest life expectancy was less than a year, and often it began to peel off before the car was delivered....”
Du Pont’s Director of Sales since 1944, Nickowitz, testified as to fabrics sold to automobile manufacturers as follows:
“Q. Now, over the years, isn’t it true that speaking generally du Pont has followed the policy in selling its fabrics to the automobile field of undercutting its competitors in price? You don’t try to sell it on a lower price than that quoted by any other competitor, do you?
“A. Well, we don’t know. We go in and we bid based on our costs. Now, in the automotive industry, we have a different situation than you do in the furniture trade, for example, where you have an established price.
“You see, in the automobile industry, each manufacturer uses a different construction. They all have their own peculiar ideas of what they want about these fabrics. Some want dyed backs, and some want different finishes, so you don’t have any standard prices in the automobile industry.” (Emphasis added.)
And see extended discussions in the opinion of the trial court, as to finishes, 126 F. Supp., at 288-292, as to fabrics, id., at 296-300.
“The phrase [‘in any line of commerce’] is comprehensive and means that if the forbidden effect or tendency is produced in one out of all the various lines of commerce, the words 'in any line of commerce’ literally are satisfied.” 278 U. S., at 253.
The General Motors brief states:
“If the market for these products were solely or mainly the General Motors Corporation, or the automobile industry as a whole, General Motors’ volume and present share of the automobile industry might constitute a market large enough for the Government to rely on.”
Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, at 314.
Moody’s Industrials lists General Motors’ proportion of the industry:
Percent Percent
1938... 42+ 1947... 38.5
1939... 42+ 1948... 38.8
1940... 45.6 1949... 42.7
1941... 45.3 1950... 45.6
1942. W. W. II 1951... 41.8
1943.W.W.II 1952... 40.3
1944. W.W.II 1953... 44.7
1945. W.W.II 1954... 49.9
1946. 36.3 1955... 48.8
Fortune Directory of the 500 Largest U. S. Industrial Corporations, July 1956, p. 2.
N. Y. Times, Feb. 3,1956, p. 1, col. 3.
A finish developed specially by du Pont and General Motors for use as an automotive finish.
A synthetic enamel developed by du Pont which is used on refrigerators, also manufactured by General Motors.
126 F. Supp., at 295.
Id., at
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns three rivers which flow through Montana and then beyond its borders. The question is whether discrete, identifiable segments of these rivers in Montana were nonnavigable, as federal law defines that concept for purposes of determining whether the State acquired title to the riverbeds underlying those segments, when the State entered the Union in 1889. Montana contends that the rivers must be found navigable at the disputed locations. From this premise, the State asserts that in 1889 it gained title to the disputed riverbeds under the constitutional equal-footing doctrine. Based on its title claims, Montana sought compensation from PPL Montana, LLC, a power company, for its use of the riverbeds for hydroelectric projects. The Montana courts granted summary judgment on title to Montana, awarding it $41 million in rent for the riverbeds for the period from 2000 to 2007 alone. That judgment must be reversed.
I
The three rivers in question are the Missouri River, the Madison River, and the Clark Fork River. The Missouri and the Madison are on the eastern side of the Continental Divide. The Madison flows into the Missouri, which then continues at length to its junction with the Mississippi River. The Clark Fork River is on the western side of the Continental Divide. Its waters join the Columbia River system that flows into the Pacific Ocean. Each river shall be described in somewhat more detail.
A
The Missouri River originates in Montana and traverses seven States before a point just north of St. Louis where it joins the Mississippi. 19 Encyclopedia Americana 270 (int’l ed. 2006). If considered with the continuous path formed by certain streams that provide the Missouri River’s headwaters, the Missouri is over 2,500 miles long, the longest river in the United States. Ibid. The Missouri River’s basin (the land area drained by the river) is the second largest in the Nation, surpassed only by the Mississippi River basin of which it is a part. Rivers of North America 427 (A. Benke & C. Cushing eds. 2005) (hereinafter Rivers of North America). As a historical matter, the river shifted and flooded often, and contained many sandbars, islands, and unstable banks. Id., at 432-433. The river was once described as one of the most “variable beings in creation,” as “inconstant [as] the action of the jury,” Sioux City Register (Mar. 28, 1868); and its high quantity of downstream sediment flow spawned its nickname, the “Big Muddy,” Rivers of North America 433.
The upstream part of the Missouri River in Montana, known as the Upper Missouri River, is better characterized as rocky rather than muddy. While one usually thinks of the Missouri River as flowing generally south, as indeed it does beginning in North Dakota, the Upper Missouri in Montana flows north from its principal headwaters at Three Forks, which is located about 4,000 feet above sea level in the Rocky Mountain area of southwestern Montana. It descends through scenic mountain terrain including the deep gorge at the Gates of the Mountains; turns eastward through the Great Falls reach, cascading over a roughly 10-mile stretch of cataracts and rapids over which the river drops more than 400 feet; and courses swiftly to Fort Benton, a 19th-century fur trading post, before progressing farther east into North Dakota and on to the Great Plains. 19 Encyclopedia Americana, supra, at 270; 8 New Encyclopaedia Britannica 190 (15th ed. 2007) (hereinafter Encyclopaedia Britannica); 2 Columbia Gazetteer of the World 2452 (2d ed. 2008) (hereinafter Columbia Gazetteer); F. Warner, Montana and the Northwest Territory 75 (1879). In 1891, just after Montana became a State, the Upper Missouri River above Fort Benton was “seriously obstructed by numerous rapids and rocks,” and the 168-mile portion flowing eastward “[f]rom Fort Benton to Carroll, Mont., [was] called the rocky river.” Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army (1891), in H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 1, pt. 2, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., vol. II, pp. 275-276 (1891) (hereinafter H. R. Exec. Doc.).
The Great Falls exemplify the rocky, rapid character of the Upper Missouri. They consist of five cascade-like waterfalls located over a stretch of the Upper Missouri leading downstream from the city of Great Falls in midwestern Montana. The waterfall farthest downstream, and the one first encountered by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark when they led their remarkable expedition through the American West in 1805, is the eponymous “Great Falls,” the tallest of the five falls at 87 feet. W. Clark, Dear Brother: Letters of William Clark to Jonathan Clark 109, n. 5 (J. Holmberg ed. 2002) (hereinafter Dear Brother). Lewis recorded observations of this “sublimely grand specticle”:
“[T]he whole body of water passes with incredible swiftness... over a precipice of at least eighty feet.... [T]he irregular and somewhat projecting rocks below receives the water... and brakes it into a perfect white foam which assumes a thousand forms in a moment sometimes flying up in jets... [that] are scarcely formed before large roling bodies of the same beaten and foaming water is thrown over and conceals them.... [T]he [rainbow] reflection of the sun on the sprey or mist... adds not a little to the beauty of this majestically grand senery.” The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 129 (G. Moulton ed. 2008) (hereinafter Lewis and Clark Journals); The Journals of Lewis and Clark 136-138 (B. DeVoto ed. 1981).
If one proceeds alongside the river upstream from Great Falls, as Lewis did in scouting the river for the expedition, the other four falls in order are “Crooked Falls” (19 feet high); “Rainbow Falls” (48 feet), which Lewis called “one of the most bea[u]tifull objects in nature”; “Colter Falls” (7 feet); and “Black Eagle Falls” (26 feet). See Lewis and Clark Journals 131-132; Dear Brother 109, n. 5; P. Outright, Lewis & Clark: Pioneering Naturalists 154-156 (2003). Despite the falls’ beauty, Lewis could see that their steep cliffs and swift waters would impede progress on the river, which had been the expedition’s upstream course for so many months. The party proceeded over a more circuitous land route by means of portage, circumventing the Great Falls and their surrounding reach of river before returning to travel upon the river about a month later. See Lewis and Clark Journals 126-152.
The Upper Missouri River, both around and further upstream of the Great Falls, shares the precipitous and fast-moving character of the falls themselves. As it moves downstream over the Great Falls reach, a 17-mile stretch that begins somewhat above the head of Black Eagle Falls, the river quickly descends about 520 feet in elevation, see Montana Power Co. v. FPC, 185 F. 2d 491 (CADC 1950); 2010 MT 64, ¶¶29-30, 108-109, 355 Mont. 402, 416, 442, 229 P. 3d 421, 433, 449, dropping over 400 feet within 10 miles from the first rapid to the foot of Great Falls, Parker, Black Eagle Falls Dam, 27 Transactions Am. Soc. of Civ. Engineers 56 (1892). In 1879, that stretch was a “constant succession of rapids and falls.” Warner, supra, at 75; see also 9 The Journals of the Lewis & Clark Expedition 171 (G. Moulton ed. 1995) (hereinafter Journals of the Lewis & Clark Expedition) (“a continued rapid the whole way for 17 miles”). Lewis noted the water was so swift over the area that buffalo were swept over the cataracts in “considerable quantities” and were “instantly crushed.” Lewis and Clark Journals 136-137. Well above the Great Falls reach, the Stubbs Ferry-stretch of the river from Helena to Cascade also had steep gradient and was “much obstructed by rocks and dangerous rapids.” Report of the Secretary of War, 2 H. R. Doc. No. 2, 54th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 301 (1895).
B
The second river to be considered is the Madison, one of the Missouri River’s headwater tributaries. Named by Lewis and Clark for then-Secretary of State James Madison, the Madison River courses west out of the Northern Rocky Mountains of Wyoming and Montana in what is now Yellowstone National Park, then runs north and merges with the Jefferson and Gallatin Rivers at Three Forks, Montana, to form the Upper Missouri. Lewis and Clark Journals 158; Rivers of North America 459; 7 Encyclopaedia Britannica 658; 2 Columbia Gazetteer 2242. Along its path, the Madison River flows through two lakes artificially created by dams built in canyons: Hebgen Lake and Ennis Lake. Federal Writers’ Project of the Work Projects Administration, Montana: A State Guide Book 356 (J. Stahlberg ed. 1949); R. Aarstad, E. Arguimbau, E. Baumler, C. Porsild, & B. Shov-ers, Montana Place Names From Alzada to Zortman: A Montana Historical Society Guide 166 (2009).
C
The third river at issue in this case is the Clark Fork. That river, which consists in large part of “long, narrow streams confined by mountainous terrain,” rises at an elevation of about 5,000 feet in the Silver Bow Mountains of southwestern Montana. 3 Encyclopaedia Britannica 352; Dept, of Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, J. Stevens & F. Henshaw, Surface Water Supply of the United States, 1907-8, Water-Supply Paper 252, pp. 81-82 (1910). The river flows northward for about 40 miles; turns northwest for a stretch; then turns abruptly northeast for a short stint, by which time it has descended nearly 2,500 feet in altitude. It then resumes a northwestward course until it empties into Lake Pend Oreille in northern Idaho, out of which flows a tributary to the Columbia River of the Pacific Northwest. Ibid.; 1 Columbia Gazetteer 816. The Clark Fork is “one of the wildest and most picturesque streams in the West,” marked by “many waterfalls and boxed gorges.” Federal Writers’ Projects of the Works Progress Administration, Idaho: A Guide in Word and Picture 230 (2d ed. 1950).
Lewis and Clark knew of the Clark Fork River but did not try to navigate it, in part because the absence of salmon in one of its tributaries made Lewis believe “ ‘there must be a considerable fall in [the river] below.’ ” H. Fritz, The Lewis and Clark Expedition 38-39 (2004). This was correct, for shortly before the Clark Fork exits to Idaho from the northwest corner of Montana, “the waters of the river dash madly along their rocky bed,” dropping over 30 feet in a half mile as they rush over falls and rapids including a “foaming waterfall” now known as Thompson Falls. 0. Rand, A Vacation Excursion: From Massachusetts Bay to Puget Sound 176-177 (1884); C. Kirk, A History of the Montana Power Company 231 (2008).
II
Petitioner PPL Montana, LLC (PPL), owns and operates hydroelectric facilities that serve Montana residents and businesses. Ten of its facilities are built upon riverbeds underlying segments of the Upper Missouri, Madison, and Clark Fork Rivers. It is these beds to which title is disputed.
On the Upper Missouri River, PPL has seven hydroelectric dams. Five of them are along the Great Falls reach, including on the three tallest falls; and the other two are in canyons upstream on the Stubbs Ferry stretch. See K. Robison, Cascade County and Great Falls 56 (2011); Aarstad et ah, supra, at 125, 119, 145-146. On the Madison River, two hydroelectric dams are located in steep canyons. On the Clark Fork River, a hydroelectric facility is constructed on the Thompson Falls.
The dams on the Upper Missouri and Madison are called the Missouri-Madison project. The Thompson Falls facility is called the Thompson Falls project. Both projects are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. PPL acquired them in 1999 from its predecessor, the Montana Power Company. 355 Mont., at 405-406, 229 P. 3d, at 426.
PPL's power facilities have existed at their locations for many decades, some for over a century. See Robison, supra, at 40 (Black Eagle Falls dam constructed by 1891). Until recently, these facilities were operated without title-based objection by the State of Montana. The State was well aware of the facilities’ existence on the riverbeds — indeed, various Montana state agencies had participated in federal licensing proceedings for these hydroelectric projects. See, e. g., Montana Power Co., 8 F. P. C. 751, 752 (1949) (Thompson Falls project); Montana Power Co., 27 FERC ¶62,097, pp. 63,188-63,189 (1984) (Ryan Dam of Missouri-Madison project). Yet the State did not seek, and accordingly PPL and its predecessor did not pay, compensation for use of the riverbeds. 355 Mont., at 406, 229 P. 3d, at 427. Instead, the understanding of PPL and the United States is that PPL has been paying rents to the United States for use of those riverbeds, as well as for use of river uplands flooded by PPL’s projects. Reply Brief for Petitioner 4; App. to Supp. Brief to Reply in Opposition 4-5; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 3, n. 3.
In 2003, parents of Montana schoolchildren sued PPL in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, arguing that PPL had built its facilities on riverbeds that were state owned and part of Montana’s school trust lands. 355 Mont., at 406, 229 P. 3d, at 426. Prompted by the litigation, the State joined the lawsuit, for the first time seeking rents for PPL’s riverbed use. The case was dismissed in September 2005 for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Dolan v. PPL Montana, LLC, No. 9:03-cv-167 (D Mont., Sept. 27, 2005).
PPL and two other power companies sued the State of Montana in the First Judicial District Court of Montana, arguing that the State was barred from seeking compensation for use of the riverbeds. 355 Mont., at 407-408, 229 P. 3d, at 427-428. By counterclaim, the State sought a declaration that under the equal-footing doctrine it owns the riverbeds used by PPL and can charge rent for their use. Id., at 408, 229 P. 3d, at 428. The Montana trial court granted summary judgment to Montana as to navigability for purposes of determining riverbed title. Id., at 408-409, 413-414, 229 P. 3d, at 428, 431-432; App. to Pet. for Cert. 143. The court decided that the State owned the riverbeds. 355 Mont., at 428-429, 229 P. 3d, at 440. The court ordered PPL to pay $40,956,180 in rent for use of the riverbeds between 2000 and 2007. Id., at 431-432, 229 P. 3d, at 442-443. Whether a lease for future periods would commence, and, if so, at what rental rate, seems to have been left to the discretion of the Montana Board of Land Commissioners. App. to Pet. for Cert. 128-129.
In a decision by a divided court, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. 355 Mont., at 461-462, 229 P. 3d, at 460-461; id., at 462, 229 P. 3d, at 461 (dissenting opinion). The court reasoned from the background principle that “navigability for title purposes is very liberally construed.” Id., at 438, 229 P. 3d, at 446. It dismissed as having “limited applicability” this Court’s approach of assessing the navigability of the disputed segment of the river rather than the river as a whole. Id., at 441-442, 229 P. 3d, at 448-449. The Montana court accepted that certain relevant stretches of the rivers were not navigable but declared them “merely short interruptions” insufficient as a matter of law to find nonnavi-gability, since traffic had circumvented those stretches by overland portage. Id., at 438, 442, 229 P. 3d, at 446, 449. Placing extensive reliance upon evidence of present-day use of the Madison River, the court found that river navigable as a matter of law at the time of statehood. Id., at 439, 229 P. 3d, at 447.
Justice Rice dissented. Id., at 462, 229 P. 3d, at 461. He stated that “courts are not to assume an entire river is navigable merely because certain reaches of the river are navigable.” Id., at 464, 229 P. 3d, at 462. The majority erred, he wrote, in rejecting the “section-by-section approach” and “declaring, as a matter of law, that the reaches claimed by PPL to be non-navigable are simply too ‘short’ to matter,” when in fact PPL’s evidence showed the “disputed reaches of the rivers were, at the time of statehood, non-navigable.” Id., at 463-466, 476-477, 229 P. 3d, at 462-464, 470.
This Court granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1018 (2011), and now reverses the judgment.
III
A
PPL contends the opinion of the Montana Supreme Court is flawed in three respects: first, the court’s failure to consider with care the navigability of the particular river segments to which title is disputed, and its disregard of the necessary overland portage around some of those segments; second, its misplaced reliance upon evidence of present-day, recreational use; and third, what the state court itself called its liberal construction of the navigability test, which did not place the burden of proof upon the State to show navigability. Brief for Petitioner 26. The United States as amicus is in substantial agreement with PPL’s arguments, although it offers a more extended discussion with respect to evidence of present-day, recreational use. Brief for United States 27-33.
It is appropriate to begin the analysis by discussing the legal principles that control the case.
B
The rule that the States, in their capacity as sovereigns, hold title to the beds under navigable waters has origins in English common law. See Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1,13 (1894). A distinction was made in England between waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide (royal rivers) and nontidal waters (public highways). With respect to royal rivers, the Crown was presumed to hold title to the riverbed and soil, but the public retained the right of passage and the right to fish in the stream. With respect to public highways, as the name suggests, the public also retained the right of water passage; but title to the riverbed and soil, as a general matter, was held in private ownership. Riparian landowners shared title, with each owning from his side to the center thread of the stream, as well as the exclusive right to fish there. See Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. 261, 285 (1997) (summarizing J. Angelí, A Treatise on the Common Law in Relation to Water-Courses 14-18 (1824)); 3 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 528-529 (9th ed. 1858).
While the tide-based distinction for bed title was the initial rule in the 13 Colonies, after the Revolution American law moved to a different standard. Some state courts came early to the conclusion that a State holds presumptive title to navigable waters whether or not the waters are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. See, e. g., Carson v. Blazer, 2 Binn. 475 (Pa. 1810); Executors of Cates v. Wadlington, 12 S. C. L. 580 (1822); Wilson v. Forbes, 13 N. C. 30 (1828); Bullock v. Wilson, 2 Port. 436 (Ala. 1835); Elder v. Burrus, 25 Tenn. 358 (1845). The tidal rule of “navigability” for sovereign ownership of riverbeds, while perhaps appropriate for England’s dominant coastal geography, was ill suited to the United States with its vast number of major inland rivers upon which navigation could be sustained. See L. Houck, Law of Navigable Rivers 26-27, 31-35 (1868); Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661, 667-669 (1891). By the late 19th century, the Court had recognized “the now prevailing doctrine” of state sovereign “title in the soil of rivers really navigable.” Shively, supra, at 31; see Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 336 (1877) (“In this country, as a general thing, all waters are deemed navigable which are really so”). This title rule became known as “navigability in fact.”
The rule for state riverbed title assumed federal constitutional significance under the equal-footing doctrine. In 1842, the Court declared that for the 13 original States, the people of each State, based on principles of sovereignty, “hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters and the soils under them,” subject only to rights surrendered and powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government. Martin v. Lessee of Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 410. In a series of 19th-century cases, the Court determined that the same principle applied to States later admitted to the Union, because the States in the Union are coequal sovereigns under the Constitution.'See, e. g., Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 228-229 (1845); Knight v. United States Land Assn., 142 U. S. 161, 183 (1891); Shively, supra, at 26-31; see United States v. Texas, 339 U. S. 707, 716 (1950). These precedents are the basis for the equal-footing doctrine, under which a State’s title to these lands was “conferred not by Congress but by the Constitution itself.” Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U. S. 363, 374 (1977). It follows that any ensuing questions of navigability for determining state riverbed title are governed by federal law. See, e. g., United States v. Utah, 283 U. S. 64, 75 (1931); United States v. Oregon, 295 U. S. 1,14 (1935).
The title consequences of the equal-footing doctrine can be stated in summary form: Upon statehood, the State gains title within its borders to the beds of waters then navigable (or tidally influenced, see Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 U. S. 469 (1988), although that is not relevant in this case). It may allocate and govern those lands according to state law subject only to “the paramount power of the United States to control such waters for purposes of navigation in interstate and foreign commerce.” Oregon, supra, at 14; see Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544, 551 (1981); United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U. S. 49, 54 (1926). The United States retains any title vested in it before statehood to any land beneath waters not then navigable (and not tidally influenced), to be transferred or licensed if and as it chooses. See Utah, supra, at 75; Oregon, supra, at 14.
Returning to the “navigability in fact” rule, the Court has explained the elements of this test. A basic formulation of the rule was set forth in The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557 (1871), a case concerning federal power to regulate navigation:
“Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or are susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.” Id., at 563.
The Daniel Ball formulation has been invoked in considering the navigability of waters for purposes of assessing federal regulatory authority under the Constitution, and the application of specific federal statutes, as to the waters and their beds. See, e. g., ibid.; The Montello, 20 Wall. 430, 439 (1874); United States v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 406, and n. 21 (1940) (Federal Power Act); Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 715, 730-731 (2006) (plurality opinion) (Clean Water Act); id., at 761 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (same). It has been used as well to determine questions of title to water beds under the equal-footing doctrine. See Utah, supra, at 76; Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U. S. 574, 586 (1922); Holt State Bank, supra, at 56. It should be noted, however, that the test for navigability is not applied in the same way in these distinct types of cases.
Among the differences in application are the following. For state title under the equal-footing doctrine, navigability is determined at the time of statehood, see Utah, supra, at 75, and based on the “natural and ordinary condition” of the water, see Oklahoma, supra, at 591. In contrast, admiralty jurisdiction extends to water routes made navigable even if not formerly so, see, e. g., Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629, 631-632 (1884) (artificial canal); and federal regulatory authority encompasses waters that only recently have become navigable, see, e. g., Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 634-635 (1912), were once navigable but are no longer, see Economy Light & Power Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 113,123-124 (1921), or are not navigable and never have been but may become so by reasonable improvements, see Appa lachian Elec. Power Co., supra, at 407-408. With respect to the federal commerce power, the inquiry regarding navigation historically focused on interstate commerce. See The Daniel Ball, supra, at 564. And, of course, the commerce power extends beyond navigation. See Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164,173-174 (1979). In contrast, for title purposes, the inquiry depends only on navigation and not on interstate travel. See Utah, supra, at 76. This list of differences is not exhaustive. Indeed, “[e]ach application of [the Daniel Ball\ test... is apt to uncover variations and refinements which require further elaboration.” Appalachian Elec. Power Co., supra, at 406.
> 1 — l
A
The primary flaw in the reasoning of the Montana Supreme Court lies in its treatment of the question of river segments and overland portage.
To determine title to a riverbed under the equal-footing doctrine, this Court considers the river on a segment-by-segment basis to assess whether the segment of the river, under which the riverbed in dispute lies, is navigable or not. In United States v. Utah, for example, the Court noted:
“[T]he controversy relates only to the sections of the rivers which are described in the complaint, and the Master has limited his findings and conclusions as to navigability accordingly. The propriety of this course, in view of the physical characteristics of the streams, is apparent. Even where the navigability of a river, speaking generally, is a matter of common knowledge, and hence one of which judicial notice may be taken, it may yet be a question, to be determined upon evidence, how far navigability extends.” 283 U. S., at 77.
The Court went on to conclude, after reciting and assessing the evidence, that the Colorado River was navigable for its first roughly 4-mile stretch, nonnavigable for the next roughly 36-mile stretch, and navigable for its remaining 149 miles. Id., at 73-74, 79-81, 89. The Court noted the importance of determining “the exact point at which navigability may be deemed to end.” Id., at 90.
Similarly, in Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 77, 86 (1922), the Court examined the segment of the Arkansas River that ran along the Osage Indian Reservation, assessing whether the Arkansas River was “navigable in fact at the locus in quo.” The Court concluded that the United States originally, and the Osages as its grantees, unequivocally held title to the riverbeds because the Arkansas River “is and was not navigable at the place where the river bed lots, here in controversy, are.” Id., at 86. The Court found the segment of river along the reservation to be nonnavigable even though a segment of the river that began further downstream was navigable. Ibid. See also Oklahoma, supra, at 583, 684, 587-588, 589-591 (noting that “how far up the streams navigability extended was not known”; assessing separately the segments of the Red River above and below its confluence with the Washita River within Oklahoma’s borders; and concluding that neither segment, and hence “no part of the river within Oklahoma,” was navigable).
The Montana Supreme Court discounted the segment-by-segment approach of this Court’s cases, calling it “a piece meal classification of navigability — with some stretches declared navigable, and others declared non-navigable.” 355 Mont., at 440-442, 229 P. 3d, at 448-449. This was error. The segment-by-segment approach to navigability for title is well settled, and it should not be disregarded. A key justification for sovereign ownership of navigable riverbeds is that a contrary rule would allow private riverbed owners to erect improvements on the riverbeds that could interfere with the public’s right to use the waters as a highway for commerce. While the Federal Government and States retain regulatory power to protect public navigation, allocation to the State of the beds underlying navigable rivers reduces the possibility of conflict between private and public interests. See Utah, supra, at 82-83; Packer, 137 U. S., at 667. By contrast, segments that are nonnavigable at the time of statehood are those over which commerce could not then occur. Thus, there is no reason that these segments also should be deemed owned by the State under the equal-footing doctrine.
Practical considerations also support segmentation. Physical conditions that affect navigability often vary significantly over the length of a river. This is particularly true with longer rivers, which can traverse vastly different terrain and the flow of which can be affected by varying local climates. The Missouri River provides an excellent example: Between its headwaters and mouth, it runs for over 2,000 miles out of steep mountains, through canyons and upon rocky beds, over waterfalls and rapids, and across sandy plains, capturing runoff from snow melt and farmland rains alike. These shifts in physical conditions provide a means to determine appropriate start points and end points for the segment in question. Topographical and geographical indicators may assist. See, e. g., Utah, supra, at 77-80 (gradient changes); Oklahoma, 258 U. S., at 589 (location of tributary providing additional flow).
A segment approach to riverbed title allocation under the equal-footing doctrine is consistent with the manner in which private parties seek to establish riverbed title. For centuries, where title to the riverbed was not in the sovereign, the common-law rule for allocating riverbed title among riparian landowners involved apportionment defined both by segment (each landowner owns bed and soil along the length of his land adjacent) and thread (each landowner owns bed and soil to the center of the stream). See J. Angelí, A Treatise on the Law of Watercourses 18 (6th ed. 1869); Tyler v. Wilkinson, 24 F. Cas. 472, 474 (No. 14,312) (CC RI 1827) (Story, J.). Montana, moreover, cannot suggest that segmentation is in-administrable when the state courts managed to divide up and apportion the underlying riverbeds for purposes of determining their value and the corresponding rents owed by PPL.
The Montana Supreme Court, relying upon Utah, decided that the segment-by-segment approach is inapplicable here because it “does not apply to ‘short interruptions] of navigability in a stream otherwise navigable.’ ” 355 Mont., at 442, 229 P. 3d, at 449 (quoting Utah, 283 U. S., at 77). This was mistaken. In Utah, this Court noted in passing that the facts of the case concerned “long reaches with particular characteristics of navigability or non-navigability” rather than “short interruption^].” Id., at 77. The Court in Utah did not say the case would have a different outcome if a “short interruption” were concerned. Ibid.
Even if the law might find some nonnavigable segments so minimal that they merit treatment as part of a longer, navigable reach for purposes of title under the equal-footing doctrine, it is doubtful that any of the segments in this case would meet that standard, and one — the Great Falls reach— certainly would not. As an initial 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:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit, removed from a Vermont court to the District Court on grounds of diversity of citizenship, was brought for damages for the discharge of petitioner under an employment contract. At the time the contract was made petitioner was a resident of New York. Respondent is a New York corporation. The contract was made in New York. Petitioner later became a resident of Vermont, where he was to perform his duties under the contract, and asserts his rights there.
The contract contains a provision that in case of any dispute the parties will submit the matter to arbitration under New York law by the American Arbitration Association, whose determination “shall be final and absolute.” After the case had been removed to the District Court, respondent moved for a stay of the proceedings so that the controversy could go to arbitration in New York. The motion alleged that the law of New York governs the question whether the arbitration provision of the contract is binding.
The District Court ruled that under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, the arbitration provision of the contract was governed by Vermont law and that the law of Vermont makes revocable an agreement to arbitrate at any time before an award is actually made. The District Court therefore denied the stay, 122 F. Supp. 733. The Court of Appeals reversed, 218 F. 2d 948. The case is here on a petition for certiorari which we granted, 349 U. S. 943, because of the doubtful application by the Court of Appeals of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra.
A question under the United States Arbitration Act, 43 Stat. 883, as amended, 61 Stat. 669, 9 U. S. C. §§ 1-3, lies at the threshold of the case. Section 2 of that Act makes “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” provisions for arbitration in certain classes of contracts; and § 3 provides for a stay of actions in the federal courts of issues referable to arbitration under those contracts. Section 2 makes “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” only two types of contracts: those relating to a maritime transaction and those involving commerce. No maritime transaction is involved here. Nor does this contract evidence “a transaction involving commerce” within the meaning of § 2 of the Act. There is no showing that petitioner while performing his duties under the employment contract was working “in” commerce, was producing goods for commerce, or was engaging in activity that affected commerce, within the meaning of our decisions.
The Court of Appeals went on to hold that in any event § 3 of the Act stands on its own footing. It concluded that while § 2 makes enforceable arbitration agreements in maritime transactions and in transactions involving commerce, § 3 covers all arbitration agreements even though they do not involve maritime transactions or transactions in commerce. We disagree with that reading of the Act. Sections 1, 2, and 3 are integral parts of a whole. To be sure, § 3 does not repeat the words “maritime transaction” or “transaction involving commerce,” used in §§ 1 and 2. But § § 1 and 2 define the field in which Congress was legislating. Since § 3 is a part of the regulatory scheme, we can only assume that the “agreement in writing” for arbitration referred to in § 3 is the kind of agreement which §§ 1 and 2 have brought under federal regulation. There is no intimation or suggestion in the Committee Reports that §§ 1 and 2 cover a narrower field than § 3. On the contrary, S. Rep. No. 536, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2, states that § 1 defines the contracts to which “the bill will be applicable.” And H. R. Rep. No. 96, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 1, states that one foundation of the new regulating measure is “the Federal control over interstate commerce and over admiralty.” If respondent’s contention is correct, a constitutional question might be presented. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins indicated that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to make the law that is applicable to controversies in diversity of citizenship cases. Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp., 293 U. S. 449, applied the Federal Act in a diversity case. But that decision antedated Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins; and the Court did not consider the larger question presented here — that is, whether arbitration touched on substantive rights, which Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins held were governed by local law, or was a mere form of procedure within the power of the federal courts or Congress to prescribe. Our view, as will be developed, is that § 3, so read, would invade the local law field. We therefore read § 3 narrowly to avoid that issue. Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co., 264 U. S. 298, 307. We conclude that the stay provided in § 3 reaches only those contracts covered by §§ 1 and 2.
The question remains whether, apart from the Federal Act, a provision of a contract providing for arbitration is enforceable in a diversity case.
The Court of Appeals, in disagreeing with the District Court as to the effect of an arbitration agreement under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, followed its earlier decision of Murray Oil Products Co. v. Mitsui & Co., 146 F. 2d 381, 383, which held that, “Arbitration is merely a form of trial, to be adopted in the action itself, in place of the trial at common law: it is like a reference to a master, or an 'advisory trial’ under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . .”
We disagree with that conclusion. We deal here with a right to recover that owes its existence to one of the States, not to the United States. The federal court enforces the state-created right by rules of procedure which it has acquired from the Federal Government and which therefore are not identical with those of the state courts. Yet, in spite of that difference in procedure, the federal court enforcing a state-created right in a diversity case is, as we said in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99, 108, in substance “only another court of the State.” The federal court therefore may not “substantially affect the enforcement of the right as given by the State.” Id., 109. If the federal court allows arbitration where the state court would disallow it, the outcome of litigation might depend on the courthouse where suit is brought. For the remedy by arbitration, whatever its merits or shortcomings, substantially affects the cause of action created by the State. The nature of the tribunal where suits are tried is an important part of the parcel of rights behind a cause of action. The change from a court of law to an arbitration panel may make a radical difference in ultimate result. Arbitration carries no right to trial by jury that is guaranteed both by the Seventh Amendment and by Ch. 1, Art. 12th, of the Vermont Constitution. Arbitrators do not have the benefit of judicial instruction on the law; they need not give their reasons for their results; the record of their proceedings is not as complete as it is in a court trial; and judicial review of an award is more limited than judicial review of a trial — all as discussed in Wilko v. Swan, 346 U. S. 427, 435-438. We said in the York case that “The nub of the policy that underlies Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins is that for the same transaction the accident of a suit by a non-resident litigant in a federal court instead of in a State court a block away should not lead to a substantially different result.” 326 U. S., at 109. There would in our judgment be a resultant discrimination if the parties suing on a Vermont cause of action in the federal court were remitted to arbitration, while those suing in the Vermont court could not be.
The District Court found that if the parties were in a Vermont court, the agreement to submit to arbitration would not be binding and could be revoked at any time before an award was made. He gave as his authority Mead’s Admx. v. Owen, 83 Vt. 132, 135, 74 A. 1058, 1059, and Sartwell v. Sowles, 72 Vt. 270, 277, 48 A. 11, 14, decided by the Supreme Court of Vermont. In the Owen case the court, in speaking of an agreement to arbitrate, held that “. . . either party may revoke the submission at any time before the publication of an award.” 83 Vt., at 135, 74 A., at 1059. That case was decided in 1910. But it was agreed on oral argument that there is no later authority from the Vermont courts, that no fracture in the rules announced in those cases has appeared in subsequent rulings or dicta, and that no legislative movement is under way in Vermont to change the result of those cases. Since the federal judge making those findings is from the Vermont bar, we give special weight to his statement of what the Vermont law is. See MacGregor v. State Mutual Co., 315 U. S. 280; Hills-borough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S. 620, 630; Steele v. General Mills, 329 U. S. 433, 439. We agree with him that if arbitration could not be compelled in the Vermont courts, it should not be compelled in the Federal District Court. Were the question in doubt or deserving further canvass, we would of course remand the case to the Court of Appeals to pass on this question of Vermont law. But, as we have indicated, there appears to be no confusion in the Vermont decisions, no developing line of authorities that casts a shadow over the established ones, no dicta, doubts or ambiguities in the opinions of Vermont judges on the question, no legislative development that promises to undermine the judicial rule. We see no reason, therefore, to remand the case to the Court of Appeals to pass on this question of local law.
Respondent argues that since the contract was made in New York and the parties contracted for arbitration under New York law, New York arbitration law should be applied to the enforcement of the contract. A question of conflict of laws is tendered, a question that is also governed by Vermont law. See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co., 313 U. S. 487. It is not clear to some of us that the District Court ruled on that question. We mention it explicitly so that it will be open for consideration on remand of the cause to the District Court.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Section 2 provides:
“A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
Section 3 provides:
“If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.”
Section 1 defines “commerce” as:
"... commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or in any Territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory and any State or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign nation, but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”
Since no transaction involving commerce appears to be involved here, we do not reach the further question whether in any event petitioner would be included in “any other class of workers” within the exceptions of § 1 of the Act.
Whether the arbitrators misconstrued a contract is not open to judicial review. The Hartbridge, 62 F. 2d 72; Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Assn. v. United Cas. Co., 142 F. 2d 390. Questions of fault or neglect are solely for the arbitrators’ consideration. James Richardson & Sons v. W. E. Hedger Transportation Corp., 98 F. 2d 55. Arbitrators are not bound by the rules of evidence. Burchett v. Marsh, 17 How. 344; Springs Cotton Mitts v. Buster Boy Suit Co., 275 App. Div. 196, 200, 88 N. Y. S. 2d 295, 298, affirmed, 300 N. Y. 586, 89 N. E. 2d 877. They may draw on their personal knowledge in making an award. American Almond Products Co. v. Consolidated Pecan Sales Co., 144 F. 2d 448; The Guldborg, 1 F. Supp. 380; Springs Cotton Mills v. Buster Boy Suit Co., supra. Absent agreement of the parties, a written transcript of the proceedings is unnecessary. A. O. Andersen Trading Co. v. Brimberg, 119 Misc. 784, 197 N. Y. S. 289; Application of Shapiro, 197 Misc. 241, 97 N. Y. S. 2d 644, modified, 277 App. Div. 927, 98 N. Y. S. 2d 451. Swearing of witnesses may not be required. Application of Shapiro, supra. And the arbitrators need not disclose the facts or reasons behind their award. Shirley Silk Co. v. American Silk Mills, Inc., 257 App. Div. 375, 377, 13 N. Y. S. 2d 309, 311.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This appeal brings before us for the second time the Utah Supreme Court’s construction of Utah Code Ann. § 15-2-1 (1973), which established 21 as the age of majority for males, and 18 as the age for females, as applied to a parent’s obligation to support his children. In our first opinion, we held that this distinction between males and females violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U. S. 7 (1975) (Stanton I). We, of course, did not decide how Utah was to eliminate the discrimination between the genders, and thereby to determine at what age the appellee’s duty to support his daughter terminated. Instead, we remanded the case to the Utah court for it to resolve this issue of state law. Id., at 17-18. Our mandate also directed that appellant should receive $437.38 for her costs on appeal to this Court.
On the remand, the Utah Supreme Court did not consider the issue presented to it and held, instead, that the age-of-majority statute was constitutional as applied to females without considering the discrimination. That action does not comply with our mandate.
Upon receiving the mandate in Stanton I, the Utah Supreme Court remanded the case, without directions, to the District Court of Salt Lake County. That court" correctly recognized, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, that the only issue before it was whether, in the absence of a validly worded statutory provision governing child-support age of majority, both sexes should be deemed to attain majority either at age 18 or at age 21. It resolved the issue by holding that, “for purposes of child support, children attain their majority at age 21.” Accordingly, it awarded appellant a total of $3,646.18, consisting of $2,700 past due support money, $508.80 interest on the judgment, and the $437.38 costs award from this Court.
On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court, by a 3-2 vote, reversed. 552 P. 2d 112 (1976). Instead of deciding the issue before it, the majority held that the portion of the statute setting the age for females could be viewed in isolation from the portion setting the age for males:
“Obviously the two provisions of the statute are separable and the Supreme Court of the United States in remanding this matter directed that we decide which age was correct and then legislate a bit on our own and say that the age of majority so chosen for the one sex is also the age of majority for the other sex.
“The oath we took when chosen as justices of the Supreme Court of Utah forbids us to encroach on the duties and functions of the legislature. However, we need not make any such determination. The age of the male child in this divorce case has never been called into question.” Id., at 113.
The court reasoned that the only child before it was a female and, therefore, that the age of 18 provided in § 15-2-1 was constitutional and still applied. As further support for its result, the court declared that the mother had no interest in the equal protection issue and that the parties expected the age discrepancy to apply when the divorce decree was drafted. Finally, as if to erase any remaining doubt about the basis of its decision, the court declared:
“Regardless of what a judge may think about equality, his thinking cannot change the facts of life. . . .
“To judicially hold that males and females attain their maturity at the same age is to be blind to the biological facts of life.” Id., at 114.
The court then undertook to reverse the entire judgment of the District Court, even including the $437.38 derived from this Court’s mandate.
This decision, obviously, is inconsistent with our opinion in Stanton I. The thrust of Stanton I, and therefore the starting point for the Utah court' on remand, was that males and females cannot be treated differently for child-support purposes consistently with the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Cf. Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190 (1976). Apparently the Utah Supreme Court did not read our opinion as requiring that the child-support law must be nondiscriminatory to comply with the constitutional standard. That, of course, is a misunderstanding. Accordingly, the judgment of the Utah Supreme Court is vacated, and the case once again is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
“15-2-1. Period of minority. — The period of minority extends in males to the age of twenty-one years and in females to that of eighteen years; but all minors obtain their majority by marriage.”
After the decision in Stanton I, the Utah Legislature amended the statute to read:
“15-2-1. Age of Majority. — The period of minority extends in males and females to the age of eighteen years; but all minors obtain their majority by marriage. It is further provided that courts in divorce actions may order support to age 21.” 1975 Utah Laws, c. 39.
The parties agree that the amendment does not apply to the present controversy.
Even the appellee recognizes the impropriety of the reversal of the costs factor, and acknowledges that the $437.38 amount is “due and owing and agrees to pay said amount.” Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss 13.
As we did in Stanton I, we emphasize that Utah is free to adopt either 18 or 21 as the age of majority for both males and females for child-support purposes. The only constraint on its power to choose is the principle set out in Stanton I, and reiterated here, that the two sexes must be treated equally. There are at least two lines of authority that the Utah court legitimately might choose to follow. On the one hand, Utah Code Ann. § 68-3-1 (1968) provides that the common law of England is the rule of decision in the state courts, except where it conflicts with the Constitution or laws of the State or of the United States. Relying on that statute, the Utah court- might elect to adopt age 21 as the age of majority in the absence of a valid statute governing child-support cases. On the other hand, the court might take note of the Utah Legislature’s response to Stanton I in its enactment of the 1975 amendment of § 15-2-1 and read the amendment as an expression by the legislature that the public policy of Utah is to treat both males and females as adults at the younger age. By suggesting these two options, we do not mean to exhaust all other possibilities; we simply mention them to illustrate the fact that our opinión leaves open this state-law issue for the state courts to decide.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner McKesson Corporation brought this action in Florida state court, alleging that Florida’s liquor excise tax violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with petitioner that the tax scheme unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce because it provided preferences for distributors of certain local products. Although the court enjoined the State from giving effect to those preferences in the future, the court also refused to provide petitioner a refund or any other form of relief for taxes it had already paid.
Our precedents establish that if a State penalizes taxpayers for failure to remit their taxes in timely fashion, thus requiring them to pay first and obtain review of the tax’s validity later in a refund action, the Due Process Clause requires the State to afford taxpayers a meaningful opportunity to secure postpayment relief for taxes already paid pursuant to a tax scheme ultimately found unconstitutional. We therefore agree with petitioner that the state court’s decision denying such relief must be reversed.
I
For several decades until 1985, Florida’s liquor excise tax scheme, which imposes taxes on manufacturers, distributors, and in some cases vendors of alcoholic beverages, provided for preferential treatment of beverages that were manufactured from certain “Florida-grown” citrus and other agricultural crops and then bottled in state. See, e. g., Fla. Stat. §§ 564.02, 564.06, 565.12, 565.14 (1983). After this Court held in Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263 (1984), that a similar preference scheme employed by the State of Hawaii violated the Commerce Clause (because it had both the purpose and effect of discriminating in favor of local products), the Florida Legislature revised its excise tax scheme and enacted the statutory provisions at issue in this litigation. See Fla. Stat. §§ 564.06, 565.12 (1989) (hereafter Liquor Tax). The legislature deleted the previous express preferences for “Florida-grown” products and replaced them with special rate reductions for certain specified citrus, grape, and sugarcane products, all of which are commonly grown in Florida and used in alcoholic beverages produced there.
Petitioner McKesson Corporation is a licensed wholesale distributor of alcoholic beverages whose products did not qualify for the rate reductions. Petitioner paid the applicable taxes every month as required after the revised Liquor Tax went into effect, but in June 1986, petitioner filed an application with the Florida Office of the Comptroller seeking a refund on the ground that the tax scheme was unlawful. In September, after the Comptroller denied its application, petitioner (along with other distributors not present here) brought suit in Florida state court against respondents Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation, and Office of the Comptroller. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the tax under the Commerce Clause as well as under various other provisions of the United States and Florida Constitutions, and petitioner sought both declaratory and injunctive relief against the continued enforcement of the discriminatory tax scheme. Pursuant to Florida’s “Repayment of Funds” statute, which provides for a refund of “[a]n overpayment of any tax, license or account due” and “[a]ny payment made into the State Treasury in error,” §§ 215.26(1)(a), (c), and in apparent compliance with the statutory requisites for preserving a claim thereunder, petitioner also sought a refund in the amount of the excess taxes it had paid as a result of its disfavored treatment.
On petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment, the Florida trial court invalidated the discriminatory tax scheme on Commerce Clause grounds because the revised “legislation failed to surmount the constitutional violations addressed in Bacchus [Imports, supra]” App. 263. The trial court enjoined future enforcement of the preferential rate reductions, leaving all distributors subject to the Liquor Tax’s nonpreferred rates. The court, however, declined to order a refund or any other form of relief for the taxes previously paid and timely challenged under the discriminatory scheme. The court’s order of prospective relief was stayed pending respondents’ appeal of the Commerce Clause ruling to the Florida Supreme Court.
Petitioner McKesson cross-appealed the trial court’s ruling, arguing that as a matter of both federal and state law it was entitled at least to “a refund of the difference between the disfavored product’s tax rate and the favored product’s tax rate.” 524 So. 2d 1000, 1009 (1988). The State Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the Liquor Tax unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce and upheld the trial court’s order that the preferential rate reductions be given no future operative effect. The Supreme Court also affirmed the trial court’s refusal to order a tax refund, declaring that “the prospective nature of the rulings below was proper in light of the equitable considerations present in this case.” Id., at 1010. The court noted that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco had collected the Liquor Tax in “good faith reliance on a presumptively valid statute.” Ibid. Moreover, the court suggested that, “if given a refund, [petitioner] would in all probability receive a windfall, since the cost of the tax has likely been passed on to [its] customers.” Ibid.
After petitioner’s request for rehearing was denied, petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court, presenting the question whether federal law entitles it to a partial tax refund. We granted the petition, 488 U. S. 954 (1988), and consolidated the case with American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith, No. 88-325, which we also decide today. Post, p. 167.
II
Respondents first ask us to hold that, though the Florida courts accepted jurisdiction over this suit which sought monetary relief from various state entities, the Eleventh Amendment nevertheless precludes our exercise of appellate jurisdiction in this case. We reject respondents’ suggestion. Almost 170 years ago, Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Court, rejected a State’s Eleventh Amendment challenge to this Court’s power on writ of error to review the judgment of a state court involving an issue of federal law. See Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 412 (1821). Although Cohens involved a proceeding commenced in the first instance by the State itself against a citizen, such that the Court’s holding might be read as limited to that circumstance, the decision has long been understood as supporting a broader proposition: “[I]t was long ago settled that a writ of error to review the final judgment of a state court, even when a State is a formal party [defendant] and is successful in the inferior court, is not a suit within the meaning of the Amendment.” General Oil Co. v. Crain, 209 U. S. 211, 233 (1908) (Harlan, J., concurring); see also Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 585 (1837) (Story, J., dissenting). Our consistent practice since Cohens confirms this broader understanding. We have repeatedly and without question accepted jurisdiction to review issues of federal law arising in suits brought against States in state court; indeed, we frequently have entertained cases analogous to this one, where a taxpayer who had brought a refund action in state court against the State asked us to reverse an adverse state judicial decision premised upon federal law.
Respondents correctly note that, since Cohens, the effect of the Eleventh Amendment on this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over cases arising in state court has only infrequently been discussed in our cases. But those discussions uniformly reveal an understanding that the Amendment does not circumscribe our appellate review of state-court judgments. Moreover, that this Court has had little occasion to discuss the issue merely reflects the extent to which States, though frequently interjecting Eleventh Amendment objections to suits initiated against them in federal court, have understood the time-honored practice of appellate review of state-court judgments to be consistent with this Court’s role in our federal system. “[I]t is plain that the framers of the constitution did contemplate that cases within the judicial cognizance of the United States not only might but would arise in the state courts, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction.” Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 340 (1816). To secure state-court compliance with, and national uniformity of, federal law, the exercise of jurisdiction by state courts over cases encompassing issues of federal law is subject to two conditions: State courts must interpret and enforce faithfully the “supreme Law of the Land,” and their decisions are subject to review by this Court. Whereas the Eleventh Amendment has been construed so that a State retains immunity from original suit in federal court, see Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 237-240 (1985), it is “inherent in the constitutional plan,” Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313, 329 (1934), that when a state court takes cognizance of a case, the State assents to appellate review by this Court of the federal issues raised in the case “whoever may be the parties to the original suit, whether private persons, or the state itself.” We recognize what has long been implicit in our consistent practice and uniformly endorsed in our cases: The Eleventh Amendment does not constrain the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over cases arising from state courts. Accordingly, we turn to the merits of petitioner’s claim.
Ill
It is undisputed that the Florida Supreme Court, after holding that the Liquor Tax unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce because of its preferences for liquor made from “‘crops which Florida is adapted to growing,”’ 524 So. 2d, at 1008, acted correctly in awarding petitioner declaratory and injunctive relief against continued enforcement of the discriminatory provisions. The question before us is whether prospective relief, by itself, exhausts the requirements of federal law. The answer is no: If a State places a taxpayer under duress promptly to pay a tax when due and relegates him to a postpayment refund action in which he can challenge the tax’s legality, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment obligates the State to provide meaningful backward-looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation.
A
We have not had occasion in recent years to explain the scope of a State’s obligation to provide retrospective relief as part of its postdeprivation procedure in cases such as this. Our approach today, however, is rooted firmly in precedent dating back to at least early this century. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. O’Connor, 223 U. S. 280 (1912), involved a suit by a railroad company to recover taxes it had paid under protest, alleging that the tax scheme violated the Commerce Clause because most of the franchise tax was apportioned to business conducted wholly outside the State. The Court agreed that the franchise tax was unconstitutional and concluded that the railroad company was entitled to a refund of the portion of the tax imposed on out-of-state activity. Justice Holmes explained:
“It is reasonable that a man who denies the legality of a tax should have a clear and certain remedy. The rule being established that apart from special circumstances he cannot interfere by injunction with the State’s collection of its revenues, an action at law to recover back what he has paid is the alternative left. Of course we are speaking of those cases where the State is not put to an action if the citizen refuses to pay. In these latter he can interpose his objections by way of defence, but when, as is common, the State has a more summary remedy, such as distress, and the party indicates by protest that he is yielding to what he cannot prevent, courts sometimes perhaps have been a little too slow to recognize the implied duress under which payment is made. But even if the State is driven to an action, if at the same time the citizen is put at a serious disadvantage in the assertion of his legal, in this case of his constitutional, rights, by defence in the suit, justice may require that he should be at liberty to avoid those disadvantages by paying promptly and bringing suit on his side.” Id., at 285-286.
After finding that the railroad company’s tax payment “was made under duress,” id., at 287, the Court issued a judgment entitling the company to a “refunding of the tax.” Ibid. Thus was the taxpayer provided a “clear and certain remedy” for the State’s unlawful extraction of tax moneys under duress.
In Ward v. Love County Board of Comm’rs, 253 U. S. 17 (1920), we reversed the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s refusal to award a refund for an unlawful tax. A subdivision of the State sought to tax lands allotted by Congress to members of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indian Tribes despite a provision of the allotment treaty making the “‘lands allotted... nontaxable while the title remains in the original allottee, but not to exceed twenty-one years from date of patent.’” Id., at 19, quoting Act of June 28, 1898, § 29, 30 Stat. 507. To avoid a distress sale of its lands, the Choctaw Tribe paid the taxes under protest and then brought suit in state court to obtain a refund. We observed that “it is certain that the lands were nontaxable” by the State and its subdivisions under the allotment treaty and, therefore, the taxes were assessed in violation of federal law. 253 U. S., at 21. After finding that the Tribe paid the taxes under duress, id., at 23, we ordered a refund. We explained the State’s duty to remit the tax as follows:
“To say that the county could collect these unlawful taxes by coercive means and not incur any obligation to pay them back is nothing short of saying that it could take or appropriate the property of these Indian allottees arbitrarily and without due process of law. Of course this would be in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment, which binds the county as an agency of the State.” Id., at 24.
See also Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U. S. 363, 369 (1930) (holding, in a case analogous to Ward, that “a denial by a state court of a recovery of taxes exacted in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States by compulsion is itself in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment”).
In Montana National Bank of Billings v. Yellowstone County, 276 U. S. 499 (1928), we applied the same due process analysis to a tax that was unlawful because it was discriminatory, though otherwise within the State’s power to impose. Montana officials had imposed a tax on shares of banks incorporated under federal law but not on shares of state-incorporated banks, relying on a Montana Supreme Court decision interpreting state law to preclude such taxation of state bank shares. The Montana National Bank of Billings paid its tax under protest and then brought suit for a refund. The bank contended that the different tax treatment violated § 5219 of the Revised Statutes, a federal statute requiring equal taxation of the shares of state and national banks. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court overruled its previous interpretation of state law and held that thereafter shares of state banks could also be taxed, thus enabling state officials to comply with § 5219. Montana National Bank of Billings v. Yellowstone County, 78 Mont. 62, 252 P. 876 (1926). The court declined, however, to order a refund of the taxes that the Montana National Bank of Billings had paid during the period when state officials had exempted state banks in reliance on the court’s earlier decision. Id., at 86, 252 P., at 883. On writ of error, this Court acknowledged that the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to overrule its previous interpretation of state law ensured for the future the equal treatment demanded by federal law. The Court noted, however, that prospective relief alone “d[id] not cure the mischief which had been done under the earlier construction.” 276 U. S., at 504. We held that the Montana National Bank of Billings “c[ould not] be deprived of its legal right to recover the amount of the tax unlawfully exacted of it by the later [Montana Supreme Court] decision which, while repudiating the construction under which the unlawful exaction was made, le[ft] the monies thus exacted in the public treasury,” id., at 504-505, and therefore the bank enjoyed “an undoubted right to recover” the moneys it had paid. Id., at 504.
The Court in Montana National Bank recognized that the federal mandate of equal treatment could have been satisfied by collecting back taxes from state banks rather than by granting a refund to national banks. Id., at 505. But as to this possibility, the Court remarked:
“[I]t is unnecessary to say more than that it nowhere appears that these [taxing] officers, if they possess the power [to assess back taxes], have undertaken to exercise it or that they have any intention of ever doing so. It will be soon enough to invite consideration of this purely speculative suggestion when, if ever, the taxing officials shall have put it into practical effect.” Ibid.
Montana National Bank thus held that one forced to pay a discriminatorily high tax in violation of federal law is entitled, in addition to prospective relief, to a refund of the excess tax paid—at least unless the disparity is removed in some other manner.
We again applied this analysis to a discriminatory tax in Iowa-Des Moines National Bank v. Bennett, 284 U. S. 239 (1931). The Court held unanimously that the State of Iowa’s taxation of the shares of state and national banks at a higher rate than those of competing domestic corporations violated the Equal Protection Clause. Id., at 245-246. With respect to the banks’ claim for a refund of excess taxes paid, Justice Brandeis explained:
“The [banks’] rights were violated, and the causes of action arose, when taxes at the lower rate were collected from their competitors. It may be assumed that all ground for a claim for refund would have fallen if the State, promptly upon discovery of the discrimination, had removed it by collecting the additional taxes from the favored competitors. By such collection the [banks’] grievances would have been redressed, for these are not primarily overassessment. The right invoked is that to equal treatment; and such treatment will be attained if either their competitors’ taxes are increased or their own reduced.” Id., at 247.
But the State did not elect to set matters right by collecting additional taxes from the banks’ competitors for the four tax years encompassed by the suit. And the Court found it “well settled” that the banks could not be “remitted to the necessity of awaiting such action by the state officials upon their own initiative.” Ibid. The Court held, therefore, that the banks were “entitled to obtain in these suits refund of the excess of taxes exacted from them.” Ibid.
B
These cases demonstrate the traditional legal analysis appropriate for determining Florida’s constitutional duty to provide relief to petitioner McKesson for its payment of an unlawful tax. Because exaction of a tax constitutes a deprivation of property, the State must provide procedural safeguards against unlawful exactions in order to satisfy the commands of the Due Process Clause. The State may choose to provide a form of “predeprivation process,” for example, by authorizing taxpayers to bring suit to enjoin imposition of a tax prior to its payment, or by allowing taxpayers to withhold payment and then interpose their objections as defenses in a tax enforcement proceeding initiated by the State. However, whereas “[w]e have described ‘the root requirement’ of the Due Process Clause as being ‘that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest,’” Cleveland Bd. of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U. S. 532, 542 (1985) (citation omitted), it is well established that a State need not provide pre-deprivation process for the exaction of taxes. Allowing taxpayers to litigate their tax liabilities prior to payment might threaten a government’s financial security, both by creating unpredictable interim revenue shortfalls against which the State cannot easily prepare, and by making the ultimate collection of validly imposed taxes more difficult. To protect government’s exceedingly strong interest in financial stability in this context, we have long held that a State may employ various financial sanctions and summary remedies, such as distress sales, in order to encourage taxpayers to make timely payments prior to resolution of any dispute over the validity of the tax assessment.
Florida has availed itself of this approach, establishing various sanctions and summary remedies designed so that liquor distributors tender tax payments before their objections are entertained and resolved. As a result, Florida does not purport to provide taxpayers like petitioner with a meaningful opportunity to withhold payment and to obtain a predeprivation determination of the tax assessment’s validity; rather, Florida requires taxpayers to raise their objections to the tax in a postdeprivation refund action. To satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause, therefore, in this refund action the State must provide taxpayers with, not only a fair opportunity to challenge the accuracy and legal validity of their tax obligation, but also a “clear and certain remedy,” O’Connor, 223 U. S., at 285, for any erroneous or unlawful tax collection to ensure that the opportunity to contest the tax is a meaningful one.
Had the Florida courts declared the Liquor Tax invalid either because (other than its discriminatory nature) it was beyond the State’s power to impose, as was the unapportioned tax in O’Connor, or because the taxpayers were absolutely immune from the tax, as were the Indian Tribes in Ward and Carpenter, no corrective action by the State could cure the invalidity of the tax during the contested tax period. The State would have had no choice but to “undo” the unlawful deprivation by refunding the tax previously paid under duress, because allowing the State to “collect these unlawful taxes by coercive means and not incur any obligation to pay them back... would be in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Ward, 253 U. S., at 24; see also Carpenter, 280 U. S., at 369.
Here, however, the Florida courts did not invalidate the Liquor Tax in its entirety; rather, they declared the tax scheme unconstitutional only insofar as it operated in a manner that discriminated against interstate commerce. The State may, of course, choose to erase the property deprivation itself by providing petitioner with a full refund of its tax payments. But as both Montana National Bank and Bennett illustrate, a State found to have imposed an impermissibly discriminatory tax retains flexibility in responding to this determination. Florida may reformulate and enforce the Liquor Tax during the contested tax period in any way that treats petitioner and its competitors in a manner consistent with the dictates of the Commerce Clause. Having done so, the State may retain the tax appropriately levied upon petitioner pursuant to this reformulated scheme because this retention would deprive petitioner of its property pursuant to a tax scheme that is valid under the Commerce Clause. In the end, the State’s postdeprivation procedure would provide petitioner with all of the process it is due: an opportunity to contest the validity of the tax and a “clear and certain remedy” designed to render the opportunity meaningful by preventing any permanent unlawful deprivation of property.
More specifically, the State may cure the invalidity of the Liquor Tax by refunding to petitioner the difference between the tax it paid and the tax it would have been assessed were it extended the same rate reductions that its competitors actually received. Cf. Montana National Bank and Bennett (curing discrimination through such refunds). Alternatively, to the extent consistent, with other constitutional restrictions, the State may assess and collect back taxes from petitioner’s competitors who benefited from the rate reductions during the contested tax period, calibrating the retroactive assessment to create in hindsight a nondiscriminatory scheme. Cf. Bennett, 284 U. S., at 247 (suggesting State could erase the unconstitutional discrimination by “collecting the additional taxes from the favored competitors”). Finally, a combination of a partial refund to petitioner and a partial retroactive assessment of tax increases on favored competitors, so long as the resultant tax actually assessed during the contested tax period reflects a scheme that does not discriminate against interstate commerce, would render petitioner’s resultant deprivation lawful and therefore satisfy the Due Process Clause’s requirement of a fully adequate postdeprivation procedure.
Respondents suggest that, in order to redress fully petitioner’s unconstitutional deprivation, the State need not actually impose a constitutional tax scheme retroactively on all distributors during the contested tax period. Rather, they claim, the State need only place petitioner in the same tax position that petitioner would have been placed by such a hypothetical scheme. Specifically, respondents contend that the State, had it known that the Liquor Tax would be declared unconstitutional, would have imposed the higher flat tax rate on all distributors. Because petitioner would have paid the same tax under this hypothetical scheme as it did under the Liquor Tax, respondents claim that petitioner is not entitled to any retrospective relief (at least in the form of a refund); such relief would confer a “windfall” on petitioner by leaving it with a smaller tax burden than it would have borne were there no Commerce Clause violation in the first place.
We implicitly rejected this line of reasoning in Montana National Bank and Bennett, and we expressly do so today. Even aside from the contrived and self-serving nature of the baseline against which respondents propose to measure petitioner’s “deprivation,” respondents’ approach is inconsistent with the nature of the State’s due process obligation. The deprivation worked by the Liquor Tax violated the Commerce Clause because the tax scheme’s purpose and effect was to impose a relative disadvantage on a category of distributors (those dealing with nonpreferred products) largely composed of out-of-state companies, not because its treatment of this category of distributors diverged from some fixed substantive norm. Hence, the salient feature of the position petitioner “should have occupied” absent any Commerce Clause violation is its equivalence to the position actually occupied by petitioner’s favored competitors.
But the State’s offer to restore petitioner only to the same absolute tax position it would have enjoyed if taxed according to a “hypothetical” nondiscriminatory scheme does not in hindsight avoid the unlawful deprivation: It still in fact treats petitioner worse than distributors using the favored local products, thereby perpetuating the Commerce Clause violation during the contested tax period. Respondents are therefore correct that petitioner’s “claim for a refund thus asks for much more than prompt injunctive relief would have achieved” only in the narrow sense that petitioner’s absolute tax burden might be lower after the refund than if the tax preferences had immediately been enjoined such that all distributors were taxed at the higher rates. However, only an actual refund (or other retroactive adjustment of the tax burdens borne by petitioner and/or its favored competitors during the contested tax period) can bring about the nondiscrimination that “prompt injunctive relief would have achieved.” If, through the State’s own choice of relief, petitioner ends up paying a smaller tax than it would have paid if the State initially had imposed the highest rate on everyone, petitioner would not enjoy an unpalatable “windfall.” Rather, petitioner would merely be protected from the comparative economic disadvantage proscribed by the Commerce Clause. Hence, the State’s duty under the Due Process Clause to provide a “clear and certain remedy” requires it to ensure that the tax as actually imposed on petitioner and its competitors during the contested tax period does not deprive petitioner of tax moneys in a manner that discriminates against interstate commerce.
c
The Florida Supreme Court cites two “equitable considerations” as grounds for providing petitioner only prospective relief, but neither is sufficient to override the constitutional requirement that Florida provide retrospective relief as part of its postdeprivation procedure. The Florida court first mentions that “the tax preference scheme [was] implemented by the [Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco] in good faith reliance on a presumptively valid statute.” 524 So. 2d, at 1010. This observation bespeaks a concern that a State’s obligation to provide refunds for what later turns out to be an unconstitutional tax would undermine the State’s ability to engage in sound fiscal planning. However, leaving aside the fact that the State might avoid any such disruption by choosing (consistent with constitutional limitations) to collect back taxes from favored distributors rather than to offer refunds, we do not find this concern weighty in these circumstances. A State’s freedom to impose various procedural requirements on actions for postdeprivation relief sufficiently meets this concern with respect to future cases. The State might, for example, provide by statute that refunds will be available only to those taxpayers paying under protest or providing some other timely notice of complaint; execute any refunds on a reasonable installment basis; enforce relatively short statutes of limitations applicable to such actions; refrain from collecting taxes pursuant to a scheme that has been declared invalid by a court or other competent tribunal pending further review of such declaration on appeal; and/or place challenged tax payments into an escrow account or employ other accounting devices such that the State can predict with greater accuracy the availability of undisputed treasury funds. The State’s ability in the future to invoke such procedural protections suffices to secure the State’s interest in stable fiscal planning when weighed against its constitutional obligation to provide relief for an unlawful tax.
And in the present case, Florida’s failure to avail itself of certain of these methods of self-protection weakens any “equitable” justification for avoiding its constitutional obligation to provide relief. Moreover, even were we to assume that the State’s reliance on a “presumptively valid statute” was a relevant consideration to Florida’s obligation to provide relief for its unconstitutional deprivation of property, we would disagree with the Florida court’s characterization of the Liquor Tax as such a statute. The Liquor Tax reflected only cosmetic changes from the prior version of the tax scheme that itself was virtually identical to the Hawaii scheme invalidated in Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263 (1984). See App. 263 (trial court held that the revised “legislation failed to surmount the constitutional violations addressed in Bacchus [Imports]”). The State can hardly claim surprise at the Florida courts’ invalidation of the scheme.
The Florida Supreme Court also speculated that “if given a refund, [petitioner] would in all probability receive a windfall, since the cost of the tax has likely been passed on to [its] customers.” 524 So. 2d, at 1010. The court’s premise seems to be that the State, faced with an obligation to cure its discrimination during the contested tax period and choosing to meet that obligation through a refund, could legitimately choose to avoid generating a “windfall” for petitioner by refunding only that portion of the tax payment not “passed on” to customers (or even suppliers). Even were we to accept this premise, the State could not refuse to provide a refund based on sheer speculation that a “pass-on” occurred. We repeatedly have recognized that determining whether a particular business cost has in fact been passed on to customers or suppliers entails a highly sophisticated theoretical and factual inquiry; a court certainly cannot withhold part of a refund otherwise required to rectify an unconstitutional deprivation without first satisfactorily engaging in this inquiry.
In any event, however, we reject respondents’ premise that “equitable considerations” justify a State’s attempt to avoid bestowing this so-called “windfall” when redressing a tax that is unconstitutional because discriminatory. In United States v. Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co., 291 U. S. 386 (1934), we enforced a statutorily created pass-on defense in a refund action designed to redress a tax overassessment. Comparing such an action to one in assumpsit for “money had and received,” we affirmed the Federal Government’s power in this equitable action to withhold the amount that the taxpayer had already passed on to others, on the theory that the taxpayer ought not be “unjustly enriched” by his recovery from the Government after he has already “recovered” his losses through the pass-on. We observed that if the taxpayer “has shifted the [economic] burden [of the tax] to the purchasers, they and not he have been the actual sufferers and are the real parties in interest,” id., at 402, and he ought not receive a windfall for their injury.
But petitioner does not challenge here a tax assessment that merely exceeded the amount authorized by statute; petitioner’s complaint was that the Florida tax scheme unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce. The tax injured petitioner not only because it left petitioner poorer in an absolute sense than before (a problem that might be rectified to the extent petitioner passed on the economic incidence of the tax to others), but also because it placed petitioner at a relative disadvantage in the marketplace vis-a-vis competitors distributing preferred local products. See n. 25, supra; see also Bacchus Imports, supra, at 267 (“[E]ven if the tax [was] completely and successfully passed on, it increase[d] the price of [petitioner’s] products as compared to the exempted beverages”). To whatever extent petitioner succeeded in passing on the economic incidence of the tax through higher prices to its customers, it most likely lost sales to the favored distributors or else incurred other costs (e. g., for advertising) in an effort to maintain its market share. The State cannot persuasively claim that “equity” entitles it to retain tax moneys taken unlawfully from petitioner due to its pass-on of the tax where the pass-on itself furthers the very competitive disadvantage constituting the Commerce Clause violation that rendered the deprivation unlawful in the first place. We thus reject respondents’ reliance on a pass-on defense in this context.
D
Respondents assert that requiring the State to rectify its unconstitutional discrimination during the contested tax period “would plainly cause serious economic and administrative dislocation for the State.” Brief for Respondents on Rearg. 20. We agree that, within our due process jurisprudence, state interests traditionally have played, and may play, some role in shaping the contours of the relief that the State must provide to illegally or erroneously deprived taxpayers, just as such interests play a role in shaping the procedural safeguards that the State must provide in order to ensure the accuracy of the initial determination of illegality or error. See generally Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 347-348 (1976). We have already noted that States have a legitimate interest in sound fiscal planning and that this interest is sufficiently weighty to allow States to withhold predeprivation relief for allegedly unlawful tax assessments, providing postdeprivation relief only. See supra, at 37. But even if a State chooses to provide partial refunds as a means of curing the unlawful discrimination (as opposed to increasing the tax assessment of those previously favored), the State’s interest in financial stability does not justify a refusal to provide relief. As noted earlier, see supra, at 46, the State here does not and cannot claim that the Florida courts’ invalidation of the Liquor Tax was a surprise, and even after the trial court found a Commerce Clause violation the State failed to take reasonable precautions to reduce its ultimate exposure for the unconstitutional tax. And in the future, States may avail themselves of a variety of procedural protections against any disruptive effects of a tax scheme’s invalidation, such as providing by statute that refunds will be available to only those taxpayers paying under protest, or enforcing relatively short statutes of limitation applicable to refund actions. See supra, at 45. Such procedural measures would sufficiently protect States’ fiscal security when weighed against their obligation to provide meaningful relief for their unconstitutional taxation.
Respondents also observe that the State’s choice of relief may entail various administrative costs (apart from the “cost” of any refund itself). Cf. Mathews, supra, at 348 (“[T]he Government’s interest...in conserving scarce fiscal and administrative resources is a factor that must be weighed” when determining precise contours of process due). The State may, of course, consider such costs when choosing between the various avenues of relief open to it. Because the Florida Supreme Court did not recognize in its refund proceeding the State’s obligation under the Due Process Clause to rectify the invalidity of its deprivation of petitioner’s property, the court did not consider how any administrative costs might influence the selection and fine-tuning of the relief afforded petitioner. We leave this to the state 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:
|
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 Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, operators of public dance halls, brought these actions, which were consolidated for trial, against the respondent Collector of Internal Revenue to recover taxes paid under the Social Security Act, Titles VIII and IX, and I. R. C., c. 9, subchap. A and C. Recovery depends on whether petitioners’ arrangements for bands to play at the dance halls made the band leaders and other members of the bands employees of the petitioners or whether, despite the arrangements, the leaders were independent contractors and therefore themselves the employers of the other members. Several band leaders were allowed to intervene in the Bartels case as defendants to protect their own interests. After a recovery in the District Court, 59 F. Supp. 84, was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Birmingham v. Bartels, 157 F. 2d 295, petitioners sought certiorari which we granted because of the importance of the issue to the administration of the Act. 329 U. S. 711. See United States v. Silk and Harrison v. Greyvan Lines, 331 U. S. 704.
These cases are not concerned with musicians hired by petitioners to play regularly for their dance halls but with “name bands” hired to play for limited engagements at their establishments. These bands are built around a leader whose name, and distinctive style in the presentation and rendition of dance music, is intended to give each band a marked individuality. The leader contracts with different ballroom operators to play at their establishments for a contract price. Almost all of the engagements here involved were one-night stands, some few being for several successive nights. The trial court found, and there is no real dispute, that the leader exercises complete control over the orchestra. He fixes the salaries of the musicians, pays them, and tells them what and how to play. He provides the sheet music and arrangements, the public address system, and the uniforms. He employs and discharges the musicians, and he pays agents’ commissions, transportation and other expenses out of the sum received from the dance hall operators. Any excess is his profit and any deficit his personal loss. The operators of the dance halls furnish the piano but not the other instruments.
The American Federation of Musicians, of which the leaders and the musicians are members, adopted a standard contract known as “Form B.” The terms of this contract create the difficulties in the determination of this case. As compensation to the bands, some contracts call for a guaranteed sum, with the privilege to the bands to take a percentage of the gross. Other contracts are for a fixed sum, only, and others for a percentage of gross, not to exceed a fixed sum. The contract states that the ballroom operator is the employer of the musicians and their leader, and “shall at all times have complete control of the services which the employees will render under the specifications of this contract.” The form paragraph, so far as pertinent, is set out in the margin. The District Court found that the contract was adopted by the Union in order to shift the incidence of the social security taxes from the leader to the ballroom operator, and that it had no practical effect on the relations between the musicians, leader, and operator. The District Court held that the question of employment under the Act was one of fact, and that the contract was only one factor to be considered. Since the District Court believed that the contract was not entered into “by fair negotiation” and that its purpose was to protect the leaders from taxes as employers, it concluded that the contract was of no effect and that the leader was an independent contractor employing the musicians.
The Circuit Court of Appeals thought otherwise. It concluded that the test of employment was the common law test of control, i. e., that one was an employer if he had the “right” to direct what should be done and how it should be done. It concluded that the contract between the parties gave the ballroom operators the “right” to control the musicians and the leader, whether or not the control was actually exercised. While the majority thought that such a contract was not binding on the Government, they thought it was binding on the parties and would control liability for employment taxes if the Bureau of Internal Revenue chose to accept the arrangement as valid. Birmingham v. Bartels, supra, at 300.
The Government here relies entirely on the contract, conceding that otherwise the bandleaders are independent contractors employing the musicians. On the other hand, the bandleaders involved contend also that though the contract be thought inconclusive, the leaders and musicians are employees of the operators. They rely upon the dependence of the orchestra members upon the ballroom operators judged in the light of the purposes of the Act.
In United States v. Silk, supra, we held that the relationship of employer-employee, which determines the liability for employment taxes under the Social Security Act, was not to be determined solely by the idea of control which an alleged employer may or could exercise over the details of the service rendered to his business by the worker or workers. Obviously control is characteristically associated with the employer-employee relationship, but in the application of social legislation employees are those who as a matter of economic reality are dependent upon the business to which they render service. In Silk, we pointed out that permanency of the relation, the skill required, the investment in the facilities for work, and opportunities for profit or loss from the activities were also factors that should enter into judicial determination as to the coverage of the Social Security Act. It is the total situation that controls. These standards are as important in the entertainment field as we have just said, in Silk, that they were in that of distribution and transportation.
Consideration of the regulations of the Treasury and the Federal Security Agency, quoted in Silk, 331 U. S. 704, at note 8, is necessary here. I. R. C., chap. 9, §§ 1429, 1609. Under those regulations, the Government successfully resisted the effort of a leader of a “name” band, like those here involved, to recover social security taxes paid on the wages of the members of his organization. Wil liams v. United States, 126 F. 2d 129. The contract in that case was not “Form B” and did not contain any corresponding control clause. Two years later, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued mimeographs 5638, 1944-5-11651, and 5767, 1944-22-11889, 1944 Cum. Bull. 547-48. They were directed at the status of musicians and variety entertainers appearing in theatres, night clubs, restaurants and similar establishments. Collectors and others were therein advised that a “Form B” or similar contract with the entertainers made operators of amusement places liable as employers under the Social Security Act. In the absence of such a contract, that is, in reality, the absence of the control clause of “Form B,” the entertainers, with “short-term engagements for a number of different operators” of amusement places, would be considered “independent contractors.” The argument of respondents to support the administrative interpretation of the regulations is that the Government may accept the voluntary contractual arrangements of the amusement operators and entertainers to shift the tax burden from the band leaders to the operators. Cases are cited to support this position. All of these cases, however, involve the problem of corporate or association entity. They are not pertinent upon the question of contracts to shift tax liability from one taxpayer to another wholly distinct and disconnected corporation or individual. We do not think that such a contractual shift authorizes the Commissioner to collect taxes from one not covered by the taxing statute. The interpretive rulings on the Regulations, referred to in this paragraph, do not have the force and effect of Treasury Decisions. We are of the opinion that such administrative action goes beyond routine and exceeds the statutory power of the Commissioner. Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U. S. 358, 369-70.
This brings us then to a determination of whether the members of a “name band” under the circumstances heretofore detailed are employees pf the operator of the dance hall or of the leader. If the operator is the employer, the leader is also his employee.
We are of the opinion that the elements of employment mark the band leader as the employer in these cases. The leader organizes and trains the band. He selects the members. It is his musical skill and showmanship that determines the success or failure of the organization. The relations between him and the other members are permanent; those between the band and the operator are transient. Maintenance costs are a charge against the price received for the performance. He bears the loss or gains the profit after payment of the members’ wages and the other band expenses.
The judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals are reversed and those of the District Court are affirmed.
Reversed.
“Witnesseth, That the employer employs the personal services of the employees, as musicians severally, and the employees severally, through their representative, agree to render collectively to the employer services as musicians in the orchestra under the leadership of Griff Williams, according to the following terms and conditions:
“The employer shall at all times have complete control of the services which the employees -will render under the specifications of this contract. On behalf of the employer the Leader will distribute the amount received from the employer to the employees, including himself, as indicated on the opposite side of this contract, or in place thereof on separate memorandum supplied to the employer at or before the commencement of the employment hereunder and take and turn over to the employer receipts therefor from each employee, including himself. The amount paid to the Leader includes the cost of transportation, which will be reported by the Leader to the employer. The employer hereby authorizes the Leader on his behalf to replace any employee who by illness, absence, or for any other reason does not perform any or all of the services provided for under this contract. . .
There is a contention that the contracts were coerced because the operators could not secure these musicians under other arrangements. We do not find it necessary to rely or pass upon that contention.
Edwards v. Chile Copper Co., 270 U. S. 452, 456; Burnet v. Commonwealth Improvement Co., 287 U. S. 415; New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 435; Helvering v. Coleman-Gilbert Associates, 296 U. S. 369, 374; Higgins v. Smith, 308 U. S. 473, 477; Gray v. Powell, 314 U. S. 402; Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 319 U. S. 436, 439; Interstate Transit Lines v. Commissioner, 319 U. S. 590; Schenley Corp. v. United States, 326 U. S. 432, 437.
See 1944 Cum. Bull., notice, p. I.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Terry Whitman, the petitioner, is an employee of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and is subject to the agency’s drug and alcohol testing program. Without first seeking to pursue grievance procedures under his collective-bargaining agreement, he filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, alleging the FAA tested him in a nonrandom manner, in violation of his constitutional rights and 49 U. S. C. § 45104(8).
The FAA has its own procedural framework for the resolution of claims by its employees; and for this purpose it adopts certain sections of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), including Chapter 71 of Title 5, which sets forth the rules for grievances. 49 U. S. C. § 40122(g)(2)(C). The District Court held that, under the provisions of the CSRA, it was without jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s claims. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, stating that because “5 U. S. C. § 7121(a)(1), as amended in 1994, does not expressly confer federal court jurisdiction over employment-related claims covered by the negotiated grievance procedures of federal employees’ collective bargaining agreements,” his claims are precluded. 382 F. 3d 938, 939 (2004). This Court granted certiorari to review the judgment. 545 U. S. 1138 (2005).
The Court of Appeals was correct to say that 5 U. S. C. § 7121(a)(1) does not confer jurisdiction. Another statute, however — a very familiar one — grants jurisdiction to the federal courts over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 1331. The question, then, is not whether 5 U. S. C. § 7121 confers jurisdiction, but whether § 7121 (or the CSRA as a whole) removes the jurisdiction given to the federal courts, see Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U. S. 635, 642 (2002) (holding that “even if [47 U. S. CJ § 252(e)(6) does not confer jurisdiction, it at least does not divest the district courts of their authority under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 to review the Commission’s order for compliance with federal law”), or otherwise precludes employees from pursuing remedies beyond those set out in the CSRA, cf. United States v. Fausto, 484 U. S. 439, 443-444 (1988); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140 (1967) (“The question is phrased in terms of ‘prohibition’ rather than ‘authorization’ because . . . judicial review of a final agency action by an aggrieved person will not be cut off unless there is persuasive reason to believe that such was the purpose of Congress”).
In deciding the question of jurisdiction and preclusion, the Court would be required first to ascertain where Whitman’s claims fit within the statutory scheme, as the CSRA provides different treatment for grievances depending on the nature of the claim. It may be, for example, that the FAA’s actions, as described by the petitioner, constitute a “prohibited personnel practice.” See 5 U. S. C. § 2302(b); 49 U. S. C. § 40122(g)(2)(A). Both the petitioner and the Government say they do not, but because the ultimate question may be jurisdictional, this concession ought not to be accepted out of hand. See Weinberger v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 412 U. S. 645, 652 (1973) (“Parties, of course, cannot confer jurisdiction; only Congress can do so”). The Court of Appeals did not decide whether the petitioner’s allegations state a “prohibited personnel practice.” The proper course, then, is to remand for the Court of Appeals to address the matter, see National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Smith, 525 U. S. 459, 470 (1999), as well as the ultimate issue of preclusion. The various other issues raised before this Court, but not decided below, may also be addressed on remand, including: whether the petitioner has challenged final agency action; whether the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies; whether exhaustion is required given this statutory scheme and the Administrative Procedure Act, as interpreted in Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U. S. 137 (1993); and whether the Government has forfeited its exhaustion-of-remedies argument. It may be that a decision on these questions can obviate the need to decide a more difficult question of preclusion.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Alito 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:
|
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.
Mb. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners are present and former members of the United States Maritime Commission. Respondents are stockholders of Dollar Steamship Lines, Inc., Ltd. (Dollar of Delaware), whose corporate name was changed to American President Lines, Ltd., subsequent to the execution in 1938 of a contract out of which the present litigation arises. By 1937 Dollar of Delaware was in difficult financial straits. The problems confronting it and the various steps taken to remedy the situation need not be recapitulated here. It is sufficient for purposes of the various questions presented by this case to say that the Commission and respondents entered into a contract in 1938 by which respondents delivered their common stock in Dollar of Delaware, endorsed in blank, to the Commission; and the Commission released some of respondents from certain obligations and agreed to grant Dollar of Delaware an operating subsidy and to make a loan to it and to obtain for it another loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
The subsidy was granted and the loans were made. By 1943 American President Lines, Ltd., had fully paid all indebtedness due the United States. Respondents thereupon demanded return of their shares of stock from the then members of the Commission, claiming that the shares had only been pledged as collateral for a debt which had been paid. The members of the Commission refused to surrender the shares, claiming that they had not been pledged under the 1938 contract but transferred outright. Acting on that theory the Commission had indeed offered the shares for sale and had under consideration substantial offers to purchase them.
Thereupon respondents instituted the present suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, see 11 D. C. Code, §§ 301, 305, 306, claiming that petitioners were unlawfully in possession of respondents’ stock and illegally withholding it. The prayer was that petitioners be restrained from selling the shares and be directed to return them to respondents. Respondents moved for a preliminary injunction. Petitioners submitted affidavits opposing the motion. After a hearing, the District Court on its own motion dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding that .the suit was against the United States. The Court of Appeals reversed. 81 U. S. App. D. C. 28, 154 F. 2d 307. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because of the importance of the question presented.
First. The facts asserted in the affidavits support the view that the 1938 contract called for the outright transfer of the shares, not for their pledge. But we put the affidavits to one side for two reasons. In the first place, the function of the affidavits was to oppose the motion for a preliminary injunction. The case had not been submitted for decision on the merits. Issue, indeed, had not yet been joined. And the ruling of the District Court, as we read it, was based on the premise that since the Commission had the right to make the contract, the suit was against the United States. Hence we do not think the District Court in fact relied on the affidavits in dismissing the complaint. In the second place, although as a general rule the District Court would have authority to consider questions of jurisdiction on the basis of affidavits as well as the pleadings, this is the type of case where the question of jurisdiction is dependent on decision of the merits.
The allegations of the complaint, if proved, would establish that petitioners are unlawfully withholding respondents’ property under the claim that it belongs to the United States. That conclusion would follow if either of respondents’ contentions were established: (1) that the Commission had no authority to purchase the shares or acquire them outright; or (2) that, even though such authority existed, the 1938 contract resulted not in an outright transfer but in a pledge of the shares.
If respondents are right in these contentions, their claim rests on their right under general law to recover possession of specific property wrongfully withheld. At common law their suit as pledgors to recover the pledged property on payment of the debt would sound in tort.
If viewed in that posture, the case is very close to United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196. That was an action in ejectment to recover possession of a tract of land. The defendants were military officers who, acting under orders of the President, took possession of the land and converted one part into a fort and another into a cemetery. For the lawfulness of their possession they relied on a tax sale of the property to the United States. On the trial it was held that the claim of the plaintiffs to the land was valid and that the defendants were wrongfully in possession. The Court affirmed the judgment over the objection that the suit was one against the United States. It held that the assertion by officers of the Government of their authority to act did not foreclose judicial inquiry into the lawfulness of their action; that a determination of whether their “authority is rightfully assumed is the exercise of jurisdiction, and must lead to the decision of the merits of the question.” P. 219. It further held that while such an adjudication is not res judicata against the United States because it cannot be made a party to the suit, the courts have jurisdiction to resolve the controversy between those who claim possession. And it concluded that an agent or officer of the United States who acts beyond his authority is answerable for his actions. And see Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 619-620; Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. United States Fleet Corp., 258 U. S. 549, 567.
Where the right to possession or enjoyment of property under general law is in issue, and the defendants claim as officers or agents' of the sovereign, the rule of United States v. Lee, supra, has been repeatedly approved. Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. Co., 109 U. S. 446, 452; Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204; Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 439; Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141, 152-153; Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, supra, pp. 619-620; Goltra v. Weeks, 271 U. S. 536, 545; Ickes v. Fox, 300 U. S. 82, 96; Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U. S. 47, 50-51. That rule is applicable here although we assume that record title to the shares is in the Commission. In United States v. Lee, supra, record title of the land was in the United States and its officers were in possession. The force of the decree in that case was to grant possession to the private claimant. Though the judgment was not res judicata against the United States, p. 222, it settled as between the parties the controversy over possession. Precisely the same will be true here, if we assume the allegations of the complaint are proved. For if we view the case in its posture before the District Court, petitioners, being members of the Commission, were in position to restore possession of the shares which they unlawfully held.
We do not trace the principle of United States v. Lee, supra, in its various ramifications. Cases on which petitioners rely are distinguishable. This is not an indirect attempt to collect a debt from the United States by preventing action of government officials which would alter or terminate the contractual obligation of the United States to pay money. See Wells v. Roper, 246 U. S. 335; Mine Safety Co. v. Forrestal, 326 U. S. 371. It is not an attempt to get specific performance of a contract to deliver property of the United States. Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U. S. 218. It is not a case where the sovereign admittedly has title to property and is sued by those who seek to compel a conveyance or to enjoin disposition of the property, the adverse claims being based on an allegedly superior equity or on rights arising under Acts of Congress. Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. Co., supra; Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373; Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U. S. 60; Naganab v. Hitchcock, 202 U. S. 473; Louisiana v. Garfield, 211 U. S. 70; Morrison v. Work, 266 U. S. 481. And see Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, 271-272.
We say the foregoing cases are distinguishable from the present one, though as a matter of logic it is not easy to reconcile all of them. But the rule is based on practical considerations reflected in the policy which forbids suits against the sovereign without its consent. The “essential nature and effect of the proceeding” may be such as to make plain that the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with the public administration. Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, 500, 502. If so, the suit is one against the sovereign. Mine Safety Co. v. Forrestal, supra, p. 374. But public officials may become tort-feasors by exceeding the limits of their authority. And where they unlawfully seize or hold a citizen’s realty or chattels, recoverable by appropriate action at law or in equity, he is not relegated to the Court of Claims to recover a money judgment. The dominant interest of the sovereign is then on the side of the victim who may bring his possessory action to reclaim that which is wrongfully withheld.
It is in the latter category that the pleadings have cast this case. That is to say, if the allegations of the petition are true, the shares of stock never were property of the United States and are being wrongfully withheld by petitioners who acted in excess of their authority as public officers. If ownership of the shares is in the United States, suit to recover them would of course be a suit against the United States. But if it is decided on the merits either that the contract was illegal or that respondents are pledgors, they are entitled to possession of the shares as against petitioners, though, as we have said, the judgment would not be res judicata as against the United States. See United States v. Lee, supra, p. 222.
We intimate no opinion on the merits of the controversy. We only hold that the District Court has jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction by proceeding to a decision on the merits.
Second. Motions were made by the Solicitor General to substitute as defendants the new members of the Commission for those who are no longer members. We added the new members as petitioners-defendants, and dismissed as to a deceased member, but reserved decision as to the other former members. A majority of those joining in this opinion are of the view that it is more appropriate that both motions be considered by the District Court. The questions have not been briefed or argued here. Moreover, the present record may not present all the facts necessary for disposition of the motions. Accordingly, we vacate the order of substitution which we entered, so that the District Court may, on remand of the cause, pass on the motions unembarrassed by any action here.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The details of the difficulties, and the steps taken to remedy them are contained in two reports to Congress by the Commission: (1) Financial Readjustments in Dollar Steamship Lines, Inc., Ltd., dated February 17, 1938; (2) Reorganization of American President Lines, Ltd., dated April 10, 1939.
Although the judgment below was not a final one, we considered it appropriate for review because it involved an issue “fundamental to the further conduct of the case.” United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373, 377.
The District Court said: "... I think . . . that the Commission had the legal right; and therefore I think it is inescapable that this is a suit against the United States and therefore that the complaint must be dismissed . . .
In passing on a motion to dismiss because the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the facts set forth in the complaint are assumed to be true and affidavits and other evidence produced on application for a preliminary injunction may not be considered. Polk Co. v. Glover, 305 U. S. 5, 9; Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U. S. 66, 76. But when a question of the District Court’s jurisdiction is raised, either by a party or by the court on its own motion, Judicial Code § 37, 28 U. S. C. § 80, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b), the court may inquire, by affidavits or otherwise, into the facts as they exist. Wetmore v. Rymer, 169 U. S. 115, 120-121; McNutt v. General Motors Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 184 et seq.; KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U. S. 269, 278. As stated in Gibbs v. Buck, supra, pp. 71-72, “As there is no statutory direction for procedure upon an issue of jurisdiction, the mode of its determination is left to the trial court.”
Restatement of the Law of Torts, §§ 223, 237; 3 Street, Foundations of Legal Liability (1906), p. 160.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 (d); Allen v. Regents, 304 U. S. 439, 444-445.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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:
Petitioners are business partners in the sale of appliances. They were convicted under § 603 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 814, which provides that “Any person who willfully violates” regulations promulgated under the Act shall be guilty of crime. The jury was instructed that the knowledge of petitioners’ employees was chargeable to petitioners in determining petitioners’ wilfulness. Because of the instruction, the Government has confessed error. We agree, and accordingly reverse the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for retrial.
John S. Boyden argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Allen H. Tib-bals.
John R. Benney argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Stern, Assistant Attorney General Olney and Beatrice Rosenberg.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We have before us two decisions of the Indiana courts, involving the application of that State’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and Civil Remedies for Racketeering Activity (CRRA) Acts to cases involving bookstores containing allegedly obscene materials.
I
The two causes before us arise from wholly unrelated incidents.
A
Petitioner in No. 87-470, Fort Wayne Books, Inc., and two other corporations each operated an “adult bookstore” in Fort Wayne, Indiana. On March 19, 1984, the State of Indiana and a local prosecutor, respondents here, filed a civil action against the three corporations and certain of their employees alleging that defendants had engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by repeatedly violating the state laws barring the distribution of obscene books and films, thereby violating the State’s RICO law. The complaint recited 39 criminal convictions for selling obscene publications from the three stores. App. 9-37. It was also alleged that there were currently other obscene materials available for sale in the stores. Id., at 37-44. The proceeds from the sales of obscene materials, it was alleged, were being used to operate and maintain the bookstores. Respondents sought civil in-junctive relief to bar further racketeering violations, invoking the State’s CRRA statute, Ind. Code § 34-4-30.5-1 et seq. (1988). Among the remedies requested in the complaint was forfeiture of all of Fort Wayne Books’ property, real and personal, that “was used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through” petitioner’s “racketeering activity.” App. 47. Such forfeiture is authorized by the CRRA statute. Ind. Code § 34-4-30.5-3(a) (1988).
Respondents also moved, in a separate “Verified Petition for Seizure of Property Subject to Forfeiture,” for the particular judicial order that is the subject of our consideration here. Specifically, respondents asked the Allen County Circuit Court “to immediately seize... all property ‘subject to forfeiture’ as set forth in [the CRRA] complaint.” App. 51. Such pretrial seizures are authorized under Ind. Code § 34-4-30.5-3(b) (1988), which empowers prosecutors bringing CRRA actions to move for immediate seizure of the property subject to forfeiture, and permits courts to issue seizure orders “upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a violation of [the State’s RICO law] involving the property in question has occurred.” The seizure petition was supported by an affidavit executed by a local police officer, recounting the 89 criminal convictions involving the defendants, further describing various other books and films available for sale at petitioner’s bookstores and believed by affiant to be obscene, and alleging a conspiracy among several of petitioner’s employees and officers who had previous convictions for obscenity offenses. App. 55-78.
The trial court, ex part-e, heard testimony in support of the petition and had supporting exhibits before it. On the same day, the court entered an order finding that probable cause existed to conclude that Fort Wayne Books was violating the State RICO law, and directing the immediate seizure of the real estate, publications, and other personal property comprising each of the three bookstores operated by the corporate defendants. Id., at 81-83. The court’s order authorized the county sheriff to padlock the stores. This was done, and a few days later, the contents of the stores were hauled away by law enforcement officials. No trial date on the CRRA complaint was ever set.
Following the March 1984 seizure of the bookstores, Fort Wayne Books sought to vacate the ex parte seizure order. An adversarial hearing on a motion to vacate the order based on federal constitutional grounds failed to yield relief. Other efforts to obtain some measure of relief also failed. The trial court did, however, certify the constitutional issues to the Indiana Court of Appeals. In June 1985, that court held that the relevant RICO/CRRA provisions were violative of the United States Constitution. 4447 Corp. v. Goldsmith, 479 N. E. 2d 578 (Ind. App.). The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, upholding the constitutionality of the CRRA statute as a general proposition and the pretrial seizure of Fort Wayne Books’ store as a specific matter. 4447 Corp. v. Goldsmith, 504 N. E. 2d 559 (1987).
We granted Fort Wayne’s petition for certiorari, 485 U. S. 938 (1988), for the purpose of considering the substantial constitutional issues raised by the pretrial seizure.
B
In No. 87-614, an investigation of adult bookstores in Howard County, Indiana, led prosecutors there, in April 1985, to charge petitioner Sappenfield with six counts of distribution of obscene matter, in violation of Ind. Code § 35-49-3-1 (1988). In addition, employing the 1984 amendments to the Indiana RICO statute discussed above, prosecutors used these alleged predicate acts of obscenity as a basis for filing two charges of RICO violations against petitioner. App. 142-143,148-149. The obscenity charges were Class A misdemeanors under Indiana law, the racketeering offenses Class C felonies.
The trial court dismissed the two RICO counts on the ground that the RICO statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to obscenity predicate offenses. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the charges against petitioner. Relying on the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion under review here in No. 87-470, 4447 Corp. v. Goldsmith, supra, the Court of Appeals held that “Indiana’s RICO statute is not unconstitutional as applied to the State’s obscenity statute.” 505 N. E. 2d 504, 506 (1987). The Indiana Supreme Court declined to review this holding of the Indiana Court of Appeals.
We granted certiorari, 485 U. S. 933 (1988), and consolidated this case with No. 87-470, to consider the common and separate issues presented by both cases.
II
Since it involves challenges to the constitutionality of the Indiana RICO statute, we deal first with No. 87-614.
As noted above, petitioner was charged with six substantive obscenity violations and two RICO offenses. App. 138-149. Petitioner challenged only the latter charges, raising no objection to the obscenity indictments. Id., at 150. He makes no claim here that the Constitution bars a criminal prosecution for distributing obscene materials. Rather, petitioner’s claim is that certain particulars of the Indiana RICO law render the prosecution of petitioner under that statute unconstitutional. Petitioner advances several specific attacks on the RICO statute.
A
Before we address the merits of petitioner’s claims, we must first consider our jurisdiction to hear this case. The relevant statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1257, limits our review to “[fjinal judgments or decrees” of the state courts. The general rule is that finality in the context of a criminal prosecution is defined by a judgment of conviction and the imposition of a sentence. See Parr v. United States, 351 U. S. 513, 518 (1956); Berman v. United States, 302 U. S. 211, 212 (1937). Since neither is present here, we would usually conclude that the judgment below is not final and is hence unreviewable.
There are, however, exceptions to the general rule. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975). Cox identified four categories of cases in which a judgment is final even though further proceedings are pending in the state courts. This case fits within the fourth category of cases described in Cox:
“[WJhere the federal issue has been finally decided in the state courts with further proceedings pending in which the party seeking review here might prevail on the merits on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary review of the federal issue by this Court, and where reversal of the state court on the federal issue would be preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause of action... in the state court proceedings still to come. In these circumstances, if a refusal immediately to review the state-court decision might seriously erode federal policy, the Court has entertained and decided the federal issue, which itself has been finally determined by the state courts for the purposes of the state litigation.” Id., at 482-483.
This case clearly satisfies the first sentence of the above-cited passage: petitioner could well prevail on nonfederal grounds at a subsequent trial, and reversal of the Indiana Court of Appeals’ holding would bar further prosecution on the RICO counts at issue here. Thus, the only debatable question is whether a refusal to grant immediate review of petitioner’s claims “might seriously erode federal policy.” Ibid.
Adjudicating the proper scope of First Amendment protections has often been recognized by this Court as a “federal policy” that merits application of an exception to the general finality rule. See, e. g., National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43, 44 (1977) (per curiam); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 246-247 (1974). Petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of the use of RICO statutes to criminalize patterns of obscenity offenses calls into question the legitimacy of the law enforcement practices of several States, as well as the Federal Government. Resolution of this important issue of the possible limits the First Amendment places on state and federal efforts to control organized crime should not remain in doubt. “Whichever way we were to decide on the merits, it would be intolerable to leave unanswered, under these circumstances, an important question of freedom of the press under the First Amendment; an uneasy and unsettled constitutional posture [of the state statute in question] could only further harm the operation of a free press.” Tornillo, supra, at 247, n. 6.
Justice O’Connor contends that a contrary result is counseled here by our decision in Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U. S. 619 (1981) (per curiam). Post, at 69-70. But as the Court understood it, “[t]he question presented for review [in Flynt was] whether on [that] record the decision to prosecute petitioners was selective or discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” Flynt, supra, at 622 (emphasis added). The claim before us in Flynt was not a First Amendment claim, but rather an equal protection claim (albeit one in the context of a trial raising First Amendment issues). As a result, Cox’s fourth exception was held to be inapplicable in that case. Though the dissenters in Flynt disagreed with the premise of the Court’s holding, and contended that that case was a First Amendment dispute that demanded immediate attention under Cox’s fourth exception, see 451 U. S., at 623 (Stewart, J., dissenting); id., at 623-624 (Stevens, J., dissenting), the fact is that no Member of the Court concluded in Flynt — as Justice O’Connor does today — that where an important First Amendment claim is before us, the Court should refuse to invoke Cox’s fourth exception and hold that we have no authority to address the issue.
Consequently, we conclude that this case, which clearly involves a First Amendment challenge to the facial validity of the Indiana RICO statute, merits review under the fourth exception recognized by Cox to the finality rule.
B
Petitioner’s broadest contention is that the Constitution forbids the use of obscenity violations as predicate acts for a RICO conviction. Petitioner’s argument in this regard is twofold: first, that the Indiana RICO law, as applied to an “enterprise” that has allegedly distributed obscene materials, is unconstitutionally vague; and second, that the potential punishments available under the RICO law are so severe that the statute lacks a “necessary sensitivity to first amendment rights,” Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, p. 23. We consider each of these arguments in turn.
(1)
The “racketeering activities” forbidden by the Indiana RICO law are a “pattern” of multiple violations of certain substantive crimes, of which distributing obscenity (Ind. Code §35-49-3-1) is one. Ind. Code §35-45-6-1 (1988). Thus, the RICO statute at issue wholly incorporates the state obscenity law by reference.
Petitioner argues that the “inherent vagueness” of the standards established by Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), are at the root of his objection to any RICO prosecution based on predicate acts of obscenity. Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 24-33. Yet, this is nothing less than an invitation to overturn Miller — an invitation that we reject. And we note that the Indiana obscenity statute, Ind. Code § 35-49-1-1 et seq. (1988), is closely tailored to conform to the Miller standards. Cf. Sedelbauer v. State, 428 N. E. 2d 206, 210-211 (Ind. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 1035 (1982). Moreover, petitioner’s motion to dismiss the RICO charges in the trial court rested on the alleged vagueness of that statute, and not any alleged defect in the underlying obscenity law. See App. 150-151, 161-167.
We find no merit in petitioner’s claim that the Indiana RICO law is unconstitutionally vague as applied to obscenity predicate offenses. Given that the RICO statute totally encompasses the obscenity law, if the latter is not unconstitutionally vague, the former cannot be vague either. At petitioner’s forthcoming trial, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the alleged RICO offense, including the allegation that petitioner violated (or attempted or conspired to violate) the Indiana obscenity law. Cf. Ind. Code §35-45-6-1 (1988); 504 N. E. 2d, at 566. Thus, petitioner cannot be convicted of violating the RICO law without first being “found guilty” of two counts of distributing (or attempting to, or conspiring to, distribute) obscene materials.
It is true, as petitioner argues, Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 16-18, that the punishments available in a RICO prosecution are different from those for obscenity violations. But we fail to see how this difference renders the RICO statute void for vagueness.
(2)
Petitioner’s next contention rests on the difference between the sanctions imposed on obscenity law violators and those imposed on convicted “racketeers”: the sanctions imposed on RICO violators are so “draconian” that they have an improper chilling effect on First Amendment freedoms, petitioner contends. See id., at 12, 17. The use of such “heavy artillery” from the “war on crime” against obscenity is improper, petitioner argues, and therefore, obscenity offenses should not be permitted to be used as predicate acts for RICO purposes.
It is true that the criminal penalties for a RICO violation under Indiana law, a Class C felony, are more severe than those authorized for an obscenity offense, a Class A misdemeanor. Specifically, if petitioner is found guilty of the two ■ RICO counts against him, he faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine; if petitioner were convicted instead of only the six predicate obscenity offenses charged in the indictments, the maximum punishment he could face would be six years in jail and $30,000 in fines. Compare Ind. Code §35-50-2-6 (1988), with Ind. Code §35-50-3-2 (1988). While the RICO punishment is obviously greater than that for obscenity violations, we do not perceive any constitutionally significant difference between the two potential punishments. Indeed, the Indiana RICO provisions in this respect function quite similarly to an enhanced sentencing scheme for multiple obscenity violations. As such, “[i]t is not for this Court... to limit the State in resorting to various weapons in the armory of the law.” Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436, 441 (1957).
It may be true that the stiffer RICO penalties will provide an additional deterrent to those who might otherwise sell obscene materials; perhaps this means — as petitioner suggests, Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 20-22 — that some cautious booksellers will practice self-censorship and remove First Amendment protected materials from their shelves. But deterrence of the sale of obscene materials is a legitimate end of state antiobscenity laws, and our cases have long recognized the practical reality that “any form of criminal obscenity statute applicable to a bookseller will induce some tendency to self-censorship and have some inhibitory effect on the dissemination of material not obscene.” Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 154-155 (1959). Cf. also Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U. S. 697, 706 (1986). The mere assertion of some possible self-censorship resulting from a statute is not enough to render an antiobscenity law unconstitutional under our precedents.
Petitioner further raises the question whether the civil sanctions available against RICO violations — under the CRRA statute — are so severe as to render the RICO statute itself unconstitutional. See, e. g., Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 22-23. However, this contention is not ripe, since the State has not sought any civil penalties in this case. These claims can only be reviewed when (or if) such remedies are enforced against petitioner.
Consequently, we find no constitutional bar to the State’s inclusion of substantive obscenity violations among the predicate offenses under its RICO statute.
C
Finally, petitioner advances two narrower objections to the application of the Indiana RICO statute in obscenity-related prosecutions.
(1)
First, petitioner contends that even if the statute is constitutional on its face, “the First Amendment... requires that predicate obscenity offenses must be affirmed convictions on successive dates'... in the same jurisdiction as that where the RICO charge is brought.” Id., at 33.
We find no constitutional basis for the claim that the alleged predicate acts used in a RICO/obscenity prosecution must be “affirmed convictions.” We rejected a like contention, albeit in dicta, when considering a case under the Federal RICO statute. See Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 488 (1985). We see no reason for a different rule where the alleged predicate acts are obscenity. As long as the standard of proof is the proper one with respect to all of the elements of the RICO allegation — including proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the requisite number of constitutionally proscribable predicate acts — all of the relevant constitutional requirements have been met. The analogy.suggested by the United States in its amicus brief is apt: “This Court has never required a State to fire warning shots, in the form of misdemeanor prosecutions, before it may bring felony charges for distributing obscene materials.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16. We likewise decline to impose such a “warning shot” requirement here.
The second aspect of this claim — that all of the predicate offenses charged must have occurred in the jurisdiction where the RICO indictment is brought — also lacks merit. This contention must be rejected in this case, if for no other reason than the fact that all of petitioner’s alleged predicate acts of distributing obscenity did take place in the same jurisdiction (Howard County) where the RICO prosecution was initiated; petitioner lacks standing to advance this claim on these facts. See App. 138-149. More significantly, petitioner’s suggestion fails because such a rule would essentially turn the RICO statute on its head: barring RICO prosecutions of large national enterprises that commit single predicate offenses in numerous jurisdictions, for example.
Of course, petitioner is correct when he argues that “community standards” may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction where different predicate obscenity offenses allegedly were committed. But as long as, for example, each previous obscenity conviction was measured by the appropriate community’s standard, we see no reason why the RICO prosecution-alleging a pattern of such violations — may take place only in a jurisdiction where two or more such offenses have occurred. Cf. Smith v. United States, 431 U. S. 291, 306-309 (1977).
(2)
Second, petitioner contends that he should.have been provided with a prompt adversarial hearing, shortly after his arrest, on the question of the obscenity of the materials he allegedly distributed. Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-614, pp. 36-37.
This contention lacks merit for several reasons. First, it does not appear that petitioner requested such a hearing below. See App. 135-137. Second, unlike No. 87-470, in this case, there was no seizure of any books or films owned by petitioner. The only expressive materials “seized” by Howard County officials in this case were a few items purchased by police officers in connection with their investigation of petitioner’s stores. See id., at 138-147. We have previously rejected the argument that such purchases trigger constitutional concerns. See Maryland v. Macon, 472 U. S. 463, 468-471 (1985).
We consequently affirm the judgment in No. 87-614.
f — I
We reverse, however, the judgment m No. 87-470 sustaining the pretrial seizure order.
In a line of cases dating back to Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717 (1961), this Court has repeatedly held that rigorous procedural safeguards must be employed before expressive materials can be seized as "obscene.” In Marcus, and again in A Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas, 378 U. S. 205 (1964), the Court invalidated large-scale confiscations of books and films, where numerous copies of selected books were seized without a prior adversarial hearing on their obscenity. In those cases, and the ones that immediately came after them, the Court established that pretrial seizures of expressive materials could only be undertaken pursuant-to a “procedure ‘designed to focus searchingly on the question of obscenity.’” Id., at 210 (quoting Marcus, supra, at 732). See also, e. g., Lee Art Theatre, Inc. v. Virginia, 392 U. S. 636 (1968).
We refined that approach further in our subsequent decisions. Most importantly, in Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 492 (1973), the Court noted that “seizing films to destroy them or to block their distribution or exhibition is a very different matter from seizing a single copy of a film for the bona fide purpose of preserving it as evidence in a criminal proceeding.” As a result, we concluded that until there was a “judicial determination of the obscenity issue in an adversary proceeding,” exhibition of a film could not be restrained by seizing all the available copies of it. Id., at 492-493. The same is obviously true for books or any other expressive materials. While a single copy of a book or film may be seized and retained for evidentiary purposes based on a finding of probable cause, the publication may not be taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of obscenity after an adversary hearing. Ibid.; see New York v. P. J. Video, Inc., 475 U. S. 868, 874-876 (1986).
Thus, while the general rule under the Fourth Amendment is that any and all contraband, instrumentalities, and evidence of crimes may be seized on probable cause (and even without a warrant in various circumstances), it is otherwise when materials presumptively protected by the First Amendment are involved. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U. S. 319, 326, n. 5 (1979). It is “[t]he risk of prior restraint, which is the underlying basis for the special Fourth Amendment protections accorded searches for and seizure of First Amendment materials” that motivates this rule. Maryland v. Macon, supra, at 470. These same concerns render invalid the pretrial seizure at issue here.
In its decision below, the Indiana Supreme Court did not challenge our precedents or the limitations on seizures that our decisions in this area have established. Rather, the court found those rules largely inapplicable in this case. 504 N. E. 2d, at 564-567. The court noted that the alleged predicate offenses included 39 convictions for violating the State’s obscenity laws and observed that the pretrial seizures (which were made in strict accordance with Indiana law) were not based on the nature or suspected obscenity of the contents of the items seized, but upon the neutral ground that the sequestered property represented assets used and acquired in the course of racketeering activity. “The remedy of forfeiture is intended not to restrain the future distribution of presumptively protected speech but rather to disgorge assets acquired through racketeering activity. Stated simply, it is irrelevant whether assets derived from an alleged violation of the RICO statute are or are not obscene.” Id., at 565. The court also specifically rejected petitioner’s claim that the legislative inclusion of violations of obscenity laws as a form of racketeering activity was “merely a semantic device intended to circumvent well-established First Amendment doctrine.” Id., at 564. The assets seized were subject to forfeiture “if the elements of a pattern of racketeering activity are shown,” ibid.; there being probable cause to believe this was the case here, the pretrial seizure was permissible, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded.
We do not question the holding of the court below that adding obscenity-law violations to the list of RICO predicate crimes was not a mere ruse to sidestep the First Amendment. And for the purpose of disposing of this case, we assume without deciding that bookstores and their contents are forfeitable (like other property such as a bank account or a yacht) when it is proved that these items are property actually used in, or derived from, a pattern of violations of the State’s obscenity laws. Even with these assumptions, though, we find the seizure at issue here unconstitutional. It is incontestable that these proceedings were begun to put an end to the sale of obscenity at the three bookstores named in the complaint, and hence we are quite sure that the special rules applicable to removing First Amendment materials from circulation are relevant here. This includes specifically the admonition that probable cause to believe that there are valid grounds for seizure is insufficient to interrupt the sale of presumptively protected books and films.
Here there was not — and has not been — any determination that the seized items were “obscene” or that a RICO violation has occurred. True, the predicate crimes on which the seizure order was based had been adjudicated and are unchallenged. But the petition for seizure and the hearing thereon were aimed at establishing no more than probable cause to believe that a RICO violation had occurred, and the order for seizure recited no more than probable cause in that respect. As noted above, our cases firmly hold that mere probable cause to believe a legal violation has transpired is not adequate to remove books or films from circulation. See, e. g., New York v. P. J. Video, Inc., 475 U. S. 868 (1986); Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483 (1973). The elements of a RICO violation other than the predicate crimes remain to be established in this case; e. g., whether the obscenity violations by the three corporations or théir employees established a pattern of racketeering activity, and whether the assets seized were forfeitable under the State’s CRRA statute. Therefore, the pretrial seizure at issue here was improper.
The fact that respondent’s motion for seizure was couched as one under the Indiana RICO law — instead of being brought under the substantive obscenity statute — is unavailing. As far back as the decision in Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 720-721 (1931), this Court has recognized that the way in which a restraint on speech is “characterized” under state law is of little consequence. See also Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 462 U. S. 61, 67-68 (1981); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546, 552-555 (1975). For example, in Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., 445 U. S. 308 (1980) (per curiam), we struck down a prior restraint placed on the exhibitions of films under a Texas “public nuisance” statute, finding that its failure to comply with our prior case law in this area was a fatal defect. Cf. also Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U. S., at 708 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (noting that if a “city were to use a nuisance statute as a pretext for closing down a bookstore because it sold indecent books... the case would clearly implicate First Amendment concerns and require analysis under the appropriate First Amendment standard of review”). While we accept the Indiana Supreme Court’s finding that Indiana’s RICO law is not “pretextual” as applied to obscenity offenses, it is true that- the State cannot escape the constitutional safeguards of our prior cases by merely recategorizing a pattern of obscenity violations as “racketeering.”
At least where the RICO violation claimed is a pattern of racketeering that can be established only by rebutting the presumption that expressive materials are protected by the First Amendment, that presumption is not rebutted until the claimed justification for seizing books or other publications is properly established in an adversary proceeding. Here, literally thousands of books and films were carried away and taken out of circulation by the pretrial order. See App. 87; Record 601-627. Yet it remained to be proved whether the seizure was actually warranted under the Indiana CRRA and RICO statutes. If we are to maintain the regard for First Amendment values expressed in our prior decisions dealing with interrupting the flow of expressive materials, the judgment of the Indiana Court must be reversed.
<1
For the reasons given above, the judgment m No. 87-470 is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The judgment in No. 87-614 is affirmed, and it too is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Justice Brennan joins only Parts I, II-A, and III of this opinion, and Justice Stevens joins only Parts I and II-A.
In addition to petitioner Fort Wayne Books, Inc., the Fort Wayne proceedings involved Cinema Blue of Fort Wayne, Inc., and Erotica House Bookstore, Inc. See App. 7.
These other entities did not seek certiorari or enter an appearance in this Court. We therefore deal only with the claims and issues raised by Fort Wayne Books, Inc.
A 1984 amendment to the state RICO law had added obscenity violations to the list of predicate offenses deemed to constitute “racketeering activity” under Indiana law. See Ind. Code § 35-45-6-1 (1988).
The Indiana Court of Appeals had consolidated the Fort Wayne Books case with another case arising from a CRRA action brought in Indianapolis, 4447 Corp. v. Goldsmith. The Indiana Supreme Court also heard these cases on a consolidated basis, issuing a single judgment upholding both seizures.
Only Fort Wayne Books, Inc., petitioned for review of the decision below. See Pet. for Cert, in No. 87-470, p. iv. Officials of the 4447 Corporation have never expressed any interest in the proceedings here, and several factual aspects of that case brought to our attention during Argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 53, suggest that it may be moot. In any event, we address only the claims and issues presented by Fort Wayne Books, Inc.
The constitutionality of criminal sanctions against those who distribute obscene materials is well established by our prior cases. See, e. g., Pinkus v. United States, 436 U. S. 293, 303-304 (1978); Splawn v. California, 431 U. S. 595, 597-599 (1977); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 23-26 (1973); Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436, 441 (1957).
The Federal RICO statute also permits prosecutions for a pattern of obscenity violations, in a manner quite similar to the Indiana law under review here. See 18 U. S. C. §1961(1) (1982 ed., Supp. IV). Thus, the “outcome of this case may... determine the constitutionality of using obscenity crimes as predicate acts in the federal RICO statute.” See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 2.
In addition, several States have followed Congress’ lead, and have added obscenity-related offenses to the list of predicate offenses that can give rise to violations of their state RICO laws. See, e. g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2301 (Supp. 1988-1989); Ind. Code § 35-45 — 6-1 (1988); Ga. Code Ann. § 16-14-3(3)(A)(xii) (1988); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-394 (1985); Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 186.2(a)(19) (West 1988).
The definition of obscenity found in the relevant statute provides that a book or film (a “matter,” in the law’s parlance) is obscene if:
“(1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the dominant theme of the matter or performance, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex;
“(2) the matter or performance depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct; and
“(3) the matter or performance, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Ind. Code §35-49-2-1 (1988).
Cf. Pope v. Illinois, 481 U. S. 497, 501-502, n. 4 (1987); Miller v. California, 413 U. S., at 25-26.
Indeed, because the scope of the Indiana RICO law is more limited than the scope of the State’s obscenity statute — with obscenity-related RICO prosecutions possible only where one is guilty of a “pattern” of obscenity violations — it would seem that the RICO statute is inherently less vague than any state obscenity law: a prosecution under the RICO law will be possible only where all the elements of an obscenity offense are present, and then some.
We have in the past upheld the constitutionality of statutes that provide criminal penalties for obscenity offenses that are not significantly different from those provided in the Indiana RICO law. See, e. g., Smith v. United States, 431 U. S. 291, 296, n. 3 (1977) (5-year prison term and $5,000 fine for first offense
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Me. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves the construction and constitutional validity of the Act of September 7, 1949, 63 Stat. 686, now codified in 18 U. S. C. §§ 4244-4248, “To provide for the care and custody of insane persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States, and for other purposes.”
Section 4244 provides a procedure for determining mental incompetency during the period “after arrest and prior to the imposition of sentence or prior to the expiration of any period of probation.” Section 4245 sets up a similar procedure for persons in prison believed to have been mentally incompetent at the time of their trial when the issue was not raised or determined before or during trial. Section 4246 states that whenever the trial court shall determine, under §§ 4244 and 4245, that an accused is or was mentally incompetent, the court may commit the accused to the custody of the Attorney General until the accused is mentally competent to stand trial or until the pending charges against him are disposed of according to law. Section 4246 further provides that if the court, after hearing as provided in the preceding §§ 4244 and 4245, finds that the conditions specified in § 4247 exist, the commitment shall be governed by § 4248. Section 4247 states that when a prisoner's sentence is about to expire and the prison board of examiners finds him insane and a probable danger to the officers, property, or other interests of the United States, then the court shall hold a hearing and, if it determines that those conditions exist, it may commit the prisoner to the custody of the Attorney General. Under § 4248 the commitment shall run until sanity is restored, or until the prisoner’s condition is so improved that he will not endanger the officers, property, or other interests of the United States, or until suitable arrangements are made for the care of the prisoner by his State of residence— reserving to the prisoner his right to establish his eligibility to release by writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner, a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, was indicted on November 20, 1952, by a grand jury of the Western District of Missouri on two counts, for robbery from a United States Post Office in Kansas City, Missouri, and for felonious assault there on a postal employee. Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure petitioner signed a waiver of trial in the Western District of Missouri and was transferred to the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio. Acting on the suggestion of appointed counsel, the district judge ordered petitioner examined by a psychiatrist. After a hearing in which the examining psychiatrist testified that it was doubtful that petitioner, because of his mental condition, could have fully understood the significance of the waiver he signed, the District Court, on February 2,1953, remanded the case to the District Court for the Western District of Missouri for disposition.
That court ordered the accused delivered to the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, for the purpose of ascertaining his mental condition. On April 15, 1953, the Chief of the Psychiatric Service at the Medical Center filed his report concluding that the accused was legally insane, in that he was unable to choose between right and wrong and could not, by reason of his mental condition adequately cooperate with counsel in his own defense.
Petitioner was then transferred to jail; but, on November 16, 1953, the District Court entered an order returning him to the Medical Center for determination whether he was acutely or chronically insane. The report of the Neuropsychiatric Staff of the Medical Center, filed February 1, 1954, indicated that petitioner was “psychotic and incompetent,” that “it is unlikely that this subject will regain his sanity in the near future,” and recommended that “consideration be given to transferring this subject to a state hospital in his state of residence.” The District Court, on the following day, ordered a further hearing under § 4246 to “resolve the power to commit defendant as mentally defective under the conditions specified in Section 4247. . . .” and for that purpose requested the Director and Board of Examiners of the Medical Center to certify whether in their judgment the defendant, if released, would “probably endanger the safety of the officers, the property, or other interests of the United States, and that suitable arrangements for the custody and care of the (defendant) are not otherwise available.” The report of the Board, dated February 4, 1954, concluded that the accused remained “psychotic and incompetent,” and stated that “at the present time there appears to be little likelihood of his recovering to the extent that he might be considered competent in the near future.” In reply to the request of the District Court, “[t]he Board agreed that this subject might be considered potentially dangerous to the extent that if released he might conceivably persist in criminal activities of the type with which he is presently charged. In considering this man’s mental illness the Board finds that he does not hold any fixed delusions concerning wanting to harm any person or group of persons, either officials of the government or otherwise, so that in this respect he probably would not constitute a danger to the safety of officers, property, or other interests of the United States. . . . The Board further recommends that this subject be considered a suitable candidate for state hospital care if suitable arrangements can be made.” In May 1954 petitioner was transferred to the custody of the State of Ohio where he was again examined by the psychiatrist who had made the examination when petitioner was transferred to the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in 1952. This time the psychiatrist found that petitioner “is now in a state of remission equivalent to a recovery. He is not now insane in the legal sense.” Petitioner was then released by the Ohio authorities.
Petitioner was rearrested in Ohio under the original indictment, which was still pending, and on June 16, 1954, removed to the Western District of Missouri. On June 18, counsel appointed for petitioner moved the court to appoint at least one qualified psychiatrist to inquire into petitioner’s mental competency and to hold a hearing for that purpose. Two psychiatrists were appointed and were directed to report to the court. Petitioner was also recommitted to the United States Medical Center, for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, for further examination.
The hearing on petitioner’s sanity was held on July 15. The two psychiatrists appointed by the court testified that in their belief petitioner was sane. The first three reports of the Medical Center were received in evidence, along with a fourth, a report of the Neuropsychiatric Staff of the Medical Center at Springfield, dated July 8, 1954. This latest report concluded “that the subject remains legally insane by reason of a major mental disorder which would prevent him from having a proper understanding of the proceeding pending against him and which also impairs his ability to properly assist in his own defense.” The staff further concluded “that this subject’s prognosis for recovery appears to be poor and that he will probably require indefinite hospitalization to insure his own safety and that of society. The staff does not consider the subject to be potentially dangerous except to the extent that if released, he might persist in engaging in criminal activities similar to those with which he is presently charged.” The Chief of the Psychiatric Service at the Medical Center testified at this hearing to the same effect.
The District Court, in its order of July 30, found that the accused was insane and so mentally incompetent that he could not stand trial, that, if released, he would probably endanger the safety of the officers, property, or other interests of the United States, and that no suitable arrangements for custody and care, other than commitment to the custody of the Attorney General, were available. Petitioner was therefore committed to the custody of the Attorney General until his sanity should be restored, or his mental condition so improved that, if released, he would not endanger the safety of the officers, property, or other interests of the United States, or until suitable arrangements could be made for the custody and care of defendant by Ohio, the State of his residence. 125 F. Supp. 777, 778. Petitioner appealed from this judgment and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, its seven circuit judges sitting en banc, affirmed, one judge dissenting. 219 F. 2d 376. Because of the important issue of federal power raised by the case and because of conflicting views in the Courts of Appeals, compare Higgins v. United States, 205 F. 2d 650, and Wells v. Attorney General, 201 F. 2d 556, with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in this case, we granted certiorari. 350 U. S. 821.
A detailed history of the legislation is set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. 219 F. 2d, at 380-384. It is sufficient to note here that the bill was proposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States after long study by a conspicuously able committee, followed by consultation with federal district and circuit judges.
The statute deals comprehensively with those persons charged with federal crime who are insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial. It provides a procedure for determination of such insanity or mental incompetence, and further provides for commitment of those found to be insane or mentally incompetent. Petitioner’s assertion that the statute deals only with the problem of temporary mental disorder is not supported by the language of the statute, and the report of the Committee of the Judicial Conference clearly indicates that the statute was designed to deal with mental disability which seems more than temporary:
“If the accused’s mental disability appears not to be a transitory condition, but in all likelihood he will, because of his insanity, never be brought to trial, it would seem that as a general rule the federal government should not assume responsibility for his hospitalization merely because he has been accused (but not convicted) of a federal crime. Normally such a person should be turned over to the state of his domicile to be confined in a state mental hospital if hospitalization is called for.
“But there may be cases where the accused’s domicile cannot be satisfactorily established and where no state will assume responsibility for his care. The federal government may then be faced with the practical situation that it has lawful custody of a person whom it is not safe to let at large. In a recent case in the District of Massachusetts, United States v. Torrez [unreported], a Filipino was brought into the district and indicted for murder on the high seas. After notice of hearing at which alienists for the government and for the defendant testified, the judge found that the defendant was at present insane and unable rationally to aid in the conduct of his defense. Obviously in such case there should be authority in the court to cause the confinement of the accused in a mental hospital.”
The District Court pursued the appropriate procedure in holding a hearing to determine the existence of the conditions specified in § 4247, once it determined that the accused’s mental incompetence seemed more than temporary. Although the language of the statute and the report of the Committee of the Judicial Conference demonstrate that the statute deals generally with the situations both of temporary and more than temporary insanity, one could infer from the reports on the bill by the Committee, by the Judicial Conference itself, and by the committees of both Houses of Congress that the specific commitment under § 4248 was designed only for prisoners whose sentences are about to expire. But this is a case for applying the canon of construction of the wag who said, when the legislative history is doubtful, go to the statute. The second sentence of § 4246 clearly makes commitment under § 4248 applicable to persons found mentally incompetent under § 4244 who meet the conditions specified in § 4247.
We reach then the narrow constitutional issue raised by the order of commitment in the circumstances of this case. The petitioner came legally into the custody of the United States. The power that put him into such custody — the power to prosecute for federal offenses — is not exhausted. Its assertion in the form of the pending indictment persists. The District Court has found that the accused is mentally incompetent to stand trial at the present time and that, if released, he would probably endanger the officers, property, or other interests of the United States — and these findings are adequately supported. In these circumstances the District Court has entered an order retaining and restraining petitioner, while in his present condition, with habeas corpus always available when circumstances warrant. This commitment, and therefore the legislation authorizing commitment in the context of this case, involve an assertion of authority, duly guarded, auxiliary to incontestable national power. As such it is plainly within congressional power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Art. I, § 8, cl. 18.
The fact that at present there may be little likelihood of recovery does not defeat federal power to make this initial commitment of the petitioner. We cannot say that federal authority to prosecute has now been irretrievably frustrated. The record shows that two court-appointed psychiatrists found petitioner sane and competent for trial. While the District Court did not accept their conclusion, their testimony illustrates the uncertainty of diagnosis in this field and the tentativeness of professional judgment. The only certain thing that can be said about the present state of knowledge and therapy regarding mental disease is that science has not reached finality of judgment, even about a situation as unpromising as petitioner’s, at least as indicated by the report of the United States Medical Center at Springfield. Certainly, denial of constitutional power of commitment to Congress in dealing with a situation like this ought not to rest on dogmatic adherence to one view or another on controversial psychiatric issues.
We decide no more than the situation before us presents and equally do not imply an opinion on situations not now before us. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Sec. 4244: “Whenever after arrest and prior to the imposition of sentence or prior to the expiration of any period of probation the United States Attorney has reasonable cause to believe that a person charged with an offense against the United States may be presently insane or otherwise so mentally incompetent as to be unable to understand the proceedings against him or properly to assist in his own defense, he shall file a motion for a judicial determination of such mental competency of the accused, setting forth the ground for such belief with the trial court in which proceedings are pending. Upon such a motion or upon a similar motion in behalf of the accused, or upon its own motion, the court shall cause the accused ... to be examined as to his mental condition by at least one qualified psychiatrist, who shall report to the court. For the purpose of the examination the court may order the accused committed for such reasonable period as the court may determine to a suitable hospital or other facility to be designated by the court. If the report of the psychiatrist indicates a state of present insanity or such mental incompetency in the accused, the court shall hold a hearing, upon due notice, at which evidence as to the mental condition of the accused may be submitted, including that of the reporting psychiatrist, and make a finding with respect thereto. . . .”
Sec. 4246: “Whenever the trial court shall determine in accordance with sections 4244 and 4245 . . . that an accused is or was mentally incompetent, the court may commit the accused to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative, until the accused shall be mentally competent to stand trial or until the pending charges against him are disposed of according to law. And if the court after hearing as provided in the preceding sections 4244 and 4245 shall determine that the conditions specified in the following section 4247 exist, the commitment shall be governed by section 4248 as herein provided.”
Sec. 4247: “Whenever the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall certify that a prisoner whose sentence is about to expire has been examined by the board of examiners referred to in . . . section 4241, and that in the judgment of the Director and the board of examiners the prisoner is insane or mentally incompetent, and that if released he will probably endanger the safety of the officers, the property, or other interests of the United States, and that suitable arrangements for the custody and care of the prisoner are not otherwise available, the Attorney General shall transmit the certificate to the clerk of the court for the district in which’ the prisoner is confined. ... If upon such hearing the court shall determine that the conditions specified above exist, the court may commit the prisoner to the custody of the Attorney General, or his authorized representative.”
Sec. 4248: “Whenever a person shall be committed pursuant to section 4247 ... his commitment shall run until the sanity or mental competency of the person shall be restored or until the mental condition of the person is so improved that if he be released he will not endanger the safety of the officers, the property, or other interests of the United States, or until suitable arrangements have been made for the custody and care of the prisoner by the State of his residence, whichever event shall first occur. . . . Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall preclude a prisoner committed under the authority of section 4247 hereof from establishing his eligibility for release under the provisions of this section by a writ of habeas corpus. The Attorney General or his authorized representative shall have authority at any time to transfer a prisoner committed to his custody under the authority of section 4246 or section 4247 hereof to the proper authorities of the State of his residence.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner is a California state prisoner who filed pro se various papers with the State Superior Court alleging state action that interfered with his access to the courts for determination of his claims. The Superior Court, which granted a hearing and designated the Public Defender’s office to represent petitioner at that hearing, treated the papers as requests for habeas corpus relief. After hearing, it made findings and held that the State had not impaired petitioner’s rights of access to the courts.
Under California law, while the State has an appeal from an order discharging a prisoner in a habeas corpus proceeding, the prisoner has no appeal where his petition is denied. See Loustalot v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. 2d 905, 913, 186 P. 2d 673, 677-678. But he may file a petition for habeas corpus either in the intermediate Court of Appeal or in the Supreme Court. As petitioner in the instant case desired to pursue his remedy in the higher courts, he asked for a free transcript of the evidentiary hearing before the Superior Court. His motion was denied and he sought review of that denial by certiorari to the District Court of Appeal. It was denied, as was a timely petition for a hearing in the Supreme Court. We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, 391 U. S. 902, to consider whether the rulings below squared with our decisions in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, and Long v. District Court, 385 U. S. 192.
We reverse the judgment below. If this involved an appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of habeas corpus, the rule of the Griffin case would prevent California from not allowing petitioner, an indigent, access to the record which makes any appellate review meaningful, while according full review to all who have the money to pay their own way. This, however, is not an appeal but the drafting of a new original petition for habeas corpus to the higher court. That new petition must reflect what had transpired in the Superior Court. The statute provides:
“Every application for a writ of habeas corpus must be verified, and shall state whether any prior application or applications have been made for a writ in regard to the same detention or restraint complained of in the application, and if any such prior application or applications have been made the later application must contain a brief statement of all proceedings had therein, or in any of them, to and including the final order or orders made therein, or in any of them, on appeal or otherwise.”
It is argued that since petitioner attended the hearing in the Superior Court, he can draw on his memory in preparing his application to the appellate court. And that court, if troubled, can always obtain the transcript from the lower court. But we deal with an adversary system where the initiative rests with the moving party. Without a transcript the petitioner, as he prepared his application to the appellate court, would have only his own lay memory of what transpired before the Superior Court. For an effective presentation of his case he would need the findings of the Superior Court and the evidence that had been weighed and rejected in order to present his case in the most favorable light. Certainly a lawyer, accustomed to precise points of law and nuances in testimony, would be lost without such a transcript, save perhaps for the unusual and exceptional case. The lawyer, having lost below, would be conscious of the skepticism that prevails above when a second hearing is sought and would as sorely need the transcript in petitioning for a hearing before the appellate court as he would if the merits of an appeal were at stake. A layman hence needs the transcript even more.
It is said that the appellate court may send for the transcript and deduce from it whether there is merit in this new application for another hearing. That philosophy would make the appellate tribunal parens patriae of the indigent habeas corpus litigant. If that would suffice for appellate hearings in habeas corpus, why not in review of cases on appeal? Since our system is an adversary one, a petitioner carries the burden of convincing the appellate court that the hearing before the lower court was either inadequate or that the legal conclusions from the. facts deduced were erroneous. A transcript is therefore the obvious starting point for those who try to make out a case for a second hearing. The State can hardly contend that a transcript is irrelevant to the second hearing, where it specifically provides one, upon request, to the appellate court and the State attorney. So long as this system of repeated hearings exists and so long as transcripts are available for preparation of appellate hearings in habeas corpus cases, they may not be furnished those who can afford them and denied those who are paupers.
There is no suggestion that in the present case there is any adequate substitute for a full stenographic transcript. We conclude that in the context of California’s habeas corpus procedure denial of a transcript to an indigent marks the same invidious discrimination which we held impermissible in the Griffin and Long cases where a State granted appeals in criminal cases but in practical effect denied effective appellate review to indigents.
Reversed.
Calif. Penal Code § 1506.
See Calif. Const., Art. 6, § 10; Calif. Penal Code § 1475; Rules 50 and 190, Calif. Rules of Court.
Calif. Penal Code § 1475.
Rule 60, Calif. Rules of Court, provides:
“When a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed in a reviewing court, seeking the release from custody of one who is confined under the process of any court of this State, and the court, before passing on the petition, desires to obtain information concerning any matter of record pertaining to the case of such person, it may order the custodian of the record to produce the same or a certified copy thereof to be filed with the clerk of the reviewing court.”
See also S. Weigel & L. Burke, State-Federal Post Conviction Problems, 1 Federal Judicial Center Report 101 (1968).
While petitioner had assigned counsel at the hearing before the Superior Court, that assignment did not cover the preparation of papers in further pursuit of relief.
Cf. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, 20.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 1700 (a) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, provides for the imposition, except as to certain classes of persons under circumstances not important here, of “A tax of 1 cent for each 10 cents or fraction thereof of the amount paid for admission to any place, including admission by season ticket or subscription.” Paragraph (2) of the subsection declares that the tax “shall be paid by the person paying for such admission.” And § 1715 requires that “Every person receiving any payments for admission . . . subject to the tax imposed by section 1700 . . . shall collect the amount thereof from the person making such payments.”
This suit, brought to recover penalties paid by petitioner for noncollection of federal admissions tax, presents two questions for determination: Whether § 1700 (a) is applicable to paid admittances to a bathing beach operated without purpose of gain by a local park district of Illinois; and, if the Code provision is to be so interpreted, whether the imposition of admissions tax in connection with such state activity is within the constitutional power of Congress.
Petitioner is Wilmette Park' District, a body politic and corporate located within the Village of Wilmette, Cook County, Illinois. Organized and administered pursuant to Illinois statutes, the District includes within its jurisdiction four park areas. The largest, Washington Park, extends for approximately three-fourths of a mile along Lake Michigan and was acquired partly by grant from the State of Illinois, partly by purchase, and partly by exercise of the power of eminent domain. At the north end of Washington Park, petitioner has operated a public bathing beach during the summer months for many years, under authority conferred by the Illinois Legislature. The beach has been used primarily by residents of the District, but also has been open to nonresidents.
Among the facilities which the District provided at the beach during the period under review were a bath house, automobile parking area, life-saving equipment, flood lighting, drinking fountains, showers, spectator benches, bicycle racks, first aid, and supplies. The operation and maintenance of the area and its various services were solely by the District, which employed the necessary personnel.
Petitioner charged all persons for admittance to the beach. Its charges were of two types: a daily fee of fifty cents on weekdays and one dollar on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, for which no ticket was issued; and a flat rate for a season ticket which could be purchased on an individual or family basis. These charges were made to cover the expense of maintenance and operation of the beach and of some capital improvements. Over the years the charges were intended merely to approximate these costs and not to produce net income or profit to petitioner; during the period 1940-1944 the accounts of the beach, maintained on a cash receipts and disbursements basis, reflected an excess of receipts over expenditures of $42.11.
In July 1941 the Collector notified petitioner to collect a tax of 10 per cent on all tickets to the beach sold on or after July 25 of that year. Petitioner had not previously collected such taxes, and it refused to do so after the Collector’s notice. Subsequently the Commissioner under § 1718 of the Code assessed over petitioner’s protest penalties in the amount of the tax which the Commissioner claimed should have been collected under § 1700 (a) from July 25, 1941 through 1945, plus interest and sums due under § 3655 (b) of the Code for failure to pay the tax on demand. These penalties amounted to $6,139.93 and were paid out of petitioner’s general funds raised by property taxes.
Petitioner filed timely claims for refund which were rejected, and in 1946 brought this suit against the Collector. The District Court entered judgment for petitioner. 76 F. Supp. 924. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 172 F. 2d 885. Because the questions presented have importance in the administration of the admissions tax sections of the Code, we granted certiorari. 337 U. S. 937.
First. The Government raises no issue as to petitioner’s standing to sue for refund. As recovery is here sought of penalties paid from petitioner’s general revenue fund after its failure to collect the tax, we deem petitioner’s financial interest clearly sufficient.
Second. Section 1700 (a) is applicable if the charge made by petitioner for admittance to the beach was, within the meaning of the statutory language, an “amount paid for admission to any place.”
The words of the provision when taken in their ordinary and familiar meaning reflect a legislative purpose of comprehensive application. By its terms the section embraces every payment made in order to secure admittance to a specific location. And this purpose of broad application is not less certain because of anything in the legislative history of the initial adoption of that language. In this view it is unnecessary to consider whether petitioner’s beach area can be distinguished from a “spectator entertainment,” for we are unable to accept petitioner’s argument that Congress intended in § 1700 (a) to tax only admissions to such events.
We think it clear that a beach area may be a “place” in the sense of § 1700 (a) (1). Petitioner’s beach park, including the adjacent shoal waters, was policed and lighted; the land area was defined, and entrance was through gates. A payment was made by patrons of the beach as the condition of admittance to a specific area with definite physical limits. Thus the fee which petitioner charged was “paid for admission” to a “place” as those terms are used in § 1700 (a) (1).
We cannot agree with petitioner’s suggestion that Congress intended to exempt from tax admissions to any activity not conducted for gain. Section 1701 of the Code did allow certain exemptions prior to their termination on October 1, 1941 pursuant to the Revenue Act of 1941, § 541 (b). 55 Stat. 687, 710. In § 1701 Congress exempted admissions to certain classes of events and admissions all the proceeds of which inured exclusively to the benefit of designated classes of persons or organizations. But since Congress did not exempt all activities not for profit as it readily might have done, it appears that admissions to such activities are not for that reason outside the admissions tax scheme. Exmoor Country Club v. United States, 119 F. 2d 961 (C. A. 7th Cir., 1941).
Nor is there greater force in petitioner’s contention that the admissions tax was not intended to apply in the case of activities conducted by a municipality. In interpreting federal revenue measures expressed in terms of general application, this Court has ordinarily found them operative in the case of state activities even though States were not expressly indicated as subjects of tax. See concurring opinion in New York v. United States, 326 U. S. 572, 584 and n. 3 (1946). And in Allen v. Regents of the Univer sity System of Georgia, 304 U. S. 439 (1938), it was decided that the admissions tax law was applicable in connection with activities carried on by an agency of a State, although it does not appear that the issue of legislative purpose was there disputed. However, we are unable to discover that there has been any design to exempt admissions to municipally conducted activities. We regard the interpretative issue as controlled by a long-continued administrative construction, expressly denying such exemption, which has been followed by repeated reenactment of the relevant language without change. Cf. Helvering v. Winmill, 305 U. S. 79 (1938).
Finally, § 1700 (a) (1) is not rendered inapplicable because beach patrons make use of a beach and its facilities, thus affording characterization of the admission fee as a “use charge.” New if any admissions taxable under § 1700 (a) are not accompanied by a use of the property or equipment to which the admittee’s license extends. Although table accommodations for which a charge is made are usually thought of as objects of a patron’s use, yet Congress in § 1704 of the Code has declared that for purposes of the admissions tax law a charge for their use must be treated as a charge for admission and not as a rental charge. A similar result must obtain when payment is prerequisite, as it was at petitioner’s beach, to both admission to and use of a specific area. Chimney Rock Co. v. United States, 63 Ct. Cl. 660 (1927), cert. denied, 275 U. S. 552 (1927); Twin Falls Natatorium v. United States, 22 F. 2d 308 (D. Idaho, 1927).
The trial court, in allowing judgment for petitioner in view of the use made of the beach, considered the fee a “use tax.” But if there is no tax exemption for admissions to a municipally conducted activity, then a municipality may not escape tax by claiming that its admission fee is a “use tax” when a similar private business could not advance such claim. Nor does it matter that petitioner’s authority to make any charge to beach patrons is derived from a statute which contemplates a charge for “use.” Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 105, § 8-7d (1947). The application of the federal admissions tax statute is not controlled by the characterization of petitioner’s fee by local law. Cf. Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U. S. 78, 81 (1940).
We conclude that § 1700 (a) is applicable.
Third. The constitutionality of admissions tax levied in connection with an activity of a state instrumentality was before this Court in Allen v. Regents of the University System of Georgia, 304 U. S. 439 (1938). We there found no constitutional inhibition against a nondiscriminatory imposition of such tax on admissions to an athletic exhibition conducted in connection with a state educational administration and in the performance of a governmental function.
The Allen decision followed soon after Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405 (1938), which declared two principles limiting state immunity from federal taxation. Id. at 419. The first of these, invoked in the Allen decision, was dependent upon the nature of the function being performed by the state agency and excluded from immunity such activities as might be thought not essential for the preservation of state government. We need not consider here the applicability of that doctrine, for the petitioner’s assertion of immunity must be rejected on the second restrictive principle reaffirmed in the Gerhardt decision. This “principle, exemplified by those cases where the tax laid upon individuals affects the state only as the burden is passed on to it by the taxpayer, forbids recognition of the immunity when the burden on the state is so speculative and uncertain that if allowed it would restrict the federal taxing power without affording any corresponding tangible protection to the state government.” 304 U. S. at 419-420. According to this principle, the State “is not necessarily protected from a tax which well may be substantially or entirely absorbed by private persons.” Id. at 420.
While the Allen decision assumed that the admissions tax there imposed was a direct burden on the State, that assumption was required only for the purpose of considering the first principle of limitation of immunity as formulated in the Gerhardt case. Such an assumption need not be made here. It is true, of course, that unless there is a shift in demand for admissions to petitioner’s beach, imposition of the tax may to an undeterminable extent adversely affect the volume of admissions. Insofar as this occurs, the services of the District will be less widely available and its revenues from beach admissions will be reduced. But admissions tax, which is “paid by the person paying for such admission,” is so imposed as to facilitate absorption by patrons of the beach rather than by the District, and we have no evidence that the District will be forced to absorb the tax in order to maintain the volume of its revenues and the availability of its benefits. Cf. Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514, 526 (1926). “The mere fact that the economic burden of such taxes may be passed on to a state government and thus increase to some extent, here wholly conjectural, the expense of its operation, infringes no constitutional immunity. Such burdens are but normal incidents of the organization within the same territory of two governments, each possessed of the taxing power.” Helvering v. Gerhardt, supra, 304 U. S. at 422.
As it follows that there is no constitutional objection to the tax penalties assessed against petitioner, the decision of the Court of Appéals must be
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
A war tax rate of 1 cent for each 5 cents or major fraction thereof has been in effect since April 1, 1944, pursuant to Revenue Act of 1943, § 302 (a). 58 Stat. 21, 61 (1944).
The District Court allowed recovery only of payments made since January 1, 1945, when respondent took office as Collector. These payments were based on petitioner’s operations after October 1, 1941, through 1945. Prior to January 1, 1945, petitioner paid $57.20 on the basis of operations from July 25, 1941, to October 1, 1941.
See 42 Ill. L. Rev. 818, 819-820 (1948).
The Report of the House Committee on Ways and Means relating to the War Revenue Act of 1917 “recommended that this tax be imposed upon all places to which admission is charged, such as motion-picture shows, theaters, circuses, entertainments, cabarets, ball games, athletic games, etc., but not upon admissions all the proceeds of which will go exclusively to the benefit of religious or charitable institutions or for agricultural purposes.” H. R. Rep. No. 45, 65th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1917). See 55 Cong. Rec. 2148 (1917).
In the admissions tax provisions of the Code, words restricting the imposition of tax to certain classes of places appear only in subsections other than (a) of § 1700. Section 1700 (b) imposes a tax of 11 per cent on the permanent use or lease of boxes or seats “in an opera house or any place of amusement”; such tax is in lieu of that provided for under § 1700 (a). Section 1700 (c) imposes on the sale outside box offices, of tickets to “theaters, operas, and other places of amusement” a tax of 11 per cent of the price in excess of the box office price; such tax is in addition to the tax imposed by § 1700 (a). Section 1700 (d) imposes a tax of 50 per cent on the amount of sales in excess of regular price by the management of “any opera house, theater, or other place of amusement.” Section 1700 (e) imposes a tax of 5 per cent on amounts paid for admission, refreshment, service, or merchandise, “at any roof garden, cabaret, or other similar place furnishing a public performance for profit”; in such cases no tax may be imposed under § 1700 (a).
Compare Exmoor Country Club v. United States, 119 F. 2d 961 (C. A. 7th Cir., 1941); Twin Falls Natatorium v. United States, 22 F. 2d 308 (D. Idaho, 1927); United States v. Roller, 287 F. 418 (W. D. Wash., 1921).
Accord: Dashow v. Harrison, 1946 P-H ¶72,405 (N. D. Ill., 1946).
Although an exemption was allowed by § 1701 of the Internal Revenue Code prior to October 1, 1941, of “admissions all the proceeds of which inure . . . exclusively to the benefit of . . . societies or organizations conducted for the sole purpose ... of improving any city, town, village, or other municipality,” we need not determine whether the exemption was properly interpreted as inapplicable to activities conducted by a municipal corporation. See Treas. Reg. 43 (1928 ed.) Art. 22; id. (1932 ed.) Art. 22; id. (1940 ed.) § 101.25. The provision became inapplicable prior to the period for which petitioner made payments which could be recovered against the present respondent. See note 2, supra.
Petitioner has argued that the specific exemption benefiting municipal improvement societies was intended to afford them the same exemption which Congress thought applied to municipal corporations; thus, it is urged, repeal of the societies’ exemption still would leave the exemption in the case of municipally conducted activities. If Congress assumed that any such municipal corporation exemption existed by implication, it seems likely that it did so because of constitutional considerations which we notice hereafter and not because of a belief or purpose that the tax was not applicable to activities conducted by any public agency. Thus Congress, in adopting 49 Stat. 1757, 1792 (1936) and 55 Stat. 303, 350 (1941), apparently assumed that an express exemption was necessary in order to withdraw admissions to National Parks from the tax statute. Cf. 55 Stat. 687, 710 (1941), terminating such exemptions of park admissions.
Treas. Reg. 43 (1919 ed., Part 1) Art. 42; id. (1921 ed., Part 1) Art. 42; id. (1922 ed., Part 1) Art. 26; id. (1924 ed., Part 1) Art. 26; id. (1926 ed., Part 1) Art. 26; id. (1928 ed.) Art. 24; id. (1932 ed.) Art. 24; id. (1940 ed.) § 101.27; id. (1941 ed.) § 101.16.
Revenue Act of 1918, § 800, 40 Stat. 1057, 1120; Revenue Act of 1921, § 800, 42 Stat. 227, 289; Revenue Act of 1924, § 500, 43 Stat. 253, 320; Revenue Act of 1926, § 500, 44 Stat. 9, 91; Revenue Act of 1928, § 411, 45 Stat. 791, 863; Revenue Act of 1932, § 711, 47 Stat. 169, 271; Pub. Res. No. 36, June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 431; I. R. C. §§ 1700, 1701 (1939); Revenue Act of 1941, § 541, 55 Stat. 687, 710.
See Huguenot Yacht Club v. United States, 32 F. Supp. 387, 388 (S. D. N. Y., 1940); Lent, The Admissions Tax, 1 Nat. Tax J. 31, 35-36 (1948); 61 Harv. L. Rev. 894 (1948).
See Lent, note 10, supra, at 40-42.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Alaska has invoked our original jurisdiction to resolve its dispute with the United States over title to certain submerged lands underlying waters located in southeast Alaska. Alaska initiated the action by filing a complaint with leave of the Court. 530 U. S. 1228 (2000). We appointed Professor Gregory E. Maggs to act as Special Master in this matter. 531 U. S. 941 (2000). The Special Master gave thorough consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. In a detailed report he now recommends the grant of summary judgment to the United States with respect to all the submerged lands in dispute. Report of Special Master 1 (hereinafter Report or Special Master’s Report). We set the case for oral argument on Alaska’s exceptions to the Special Master’s Report. 543 U. S. 953 (2004). For the reasons we discuss, Alaska’s exceptions are overruled.
I
We begin by reviewing the general principles elaborated in the resolution of similar submerged lands disputes in our earlier cases.
States enjoy a presumption of title to submerged lands beneath inland navigable waters within their boundaries and beneath territorial waters within three nautical miles of their coasts. This presumption flows from two sources. Under the established rule known as the equal-footing doctrine, new States enter the Union “on an ‘equal footing’ with the original 13 Colonies and succeed to the United States’ title to the beds of navigable waters within their boundaries.” United States v. Alaska, 521 U. S. 1, 5 (1997) (Alaska (Arctic Coast)). Under the Submerged Lands Act (SLA), 67 Stat. 29, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., which applies to Alaska through an express provision of the Alaska Statehood Act (ASA), § 6(m), 72 Stat. 343, the presumption of state title to “lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States” is “confirmed” and “established.” 43 U. S. C. § 1311(a); see also Alaska (Arctic Coast), 521 U. S., at 5-6. The SLA also “establishes States’ title to submerged lands beneath a 3-mile belt of the territorial sea, which would otherwise be held by the United States.” Id., at 6. “As a general matter, then, Alaska is entitled under both the equal footing doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act to submerged lands beneath tidal and inland navigable waters, and under the Submerged Lands Act alone to submerged lands extending three miles seaward of its coastline.” Ibid.
The Federal Government can overcome the presumption and defeat a future State’s title to submerged lands by setting them aside before statehood in a way that shows an intent to retain title. Id., at 33-34. The requisite intent must, however, be “‘definitely declared or otherwise made very plain.’” Id., at 34 (quoting United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U. S. 49, 55 (1926)).
With these principles in mind, we discuss the two areas of submerged land at issue here.
II
The first area of submerged land in dispute, claimed by Alaska under alternative theories in counts I and II of its amended complaint to quiet title (hereinafter Amended Complaint), consists of pockets and enclaves of submerged lands underlying waters in between and fringing the southeastern Alaska islands known as the Alexander Archipelago. These disputed submerged lands, shown in red and dark blue on the map in Appendix A, infra, share a common feature: All points within the pockets and enclaves are more than three nautical miles from the coast of the mainland or of any individual island of the Alexander Archipelago.
For these pockets and enclaves, the dispositive question is whether the Alexander Archipelago’s waters qualify as inland waters. If they do, Alaska’s coastline would begin at the outer bounds of these inland waters as marked by the black line drawn on the map in Appendix A, infra. See 43 U. S. C. § 1301(c) (“The term ‘coast line’ means the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters”); see also United States v. Alaska, 422 U. S. 184, 187-188, and n. 5 (1975) (Alaska (Cook Inlet)). Under the equal-footing doctrine and the SLA, a presumption of state title would then arise as to all the submerged lands underlying both the inland waters landward of this coastline, and also the territorial sea within three nautical miles of it. Because the United States concedes it could not rebut the presumption of state title as to this aspect of the case, Alaska would have title to all the pockets and enclaves of submerged lands in dispute.
If the Alexander Archipelago’s waters do not qualify as inland, then they instead qualify as territorial sea. In that case Alaska would have no claim of title to the disputed pockets and enclaves, as these lands are beyond three nautical miles from the coast of the mainland or any individual island.
The second area of submerged land in dispute, claimed by Alaska in count IV of its Amended Complaint, consists of the submerged land beneath Glacier Bay, a well-marked indentation into the coast of the southeast Alaskan mainland. See Appendixes C, D, infra (maps of Glacier Bay). There is no question that Glacier Bay’s waters are inland. For the submerged lands underlying these waters, the controlling question is whether the United States can rebut Alaska’s presumption of title.
After receiving the parties’ written submissions and conducting a hearing, the Special Master recommended that this Court grant summary judgment to the United States with respect to Alaska’s claims of title to both areas of submerged land in dispute. Report 1. As to the pockets and enclaves, the Special Master concluded that the waters of the Alexander Archipelago do not qualify as inland waters either under the historic inland waters theory advanced in count I of Alaska’s Amended Complaint or under the juridical bay theory advanced in count II. Id., at 137-138, 226. As to the submerged lands underlying Glacier Bay and claimed by Alaska in count IV, the Special Master concluded that the United States has rebutted the presumption that title passed to Alaska at statehood. Id., at 276. Alaska filed exceptions to each of these three conclusions. We address them in turn.
Ill
In count I of its Amended Complaint, Alaska alleges that the waters of the Alexander Archipelago are historic inland waters. As this Court has recognized, “where a State within the United States wishes to claim submerged lands based on an area’s status as historic inland waters, the State must demonstrate that the United States: (1) exercises authority over the area; (2) has done so continuously; and (3) has done so with the acquiescence of foreign nations.” Alaska (Arctic Coast), supra, at 11. “For this showing,” we have elaborated, “the exercise of sovereignty must have been, historically, an assertion of power to exclude all foreign vessels and navigation.” Alaska (Cook Inlet), supra, at 197.
Nations may exclude from inland waters even vessels engaged in so-called “innocent passage” — passage that “is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State,” Arts. 14(1), 14(4) of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Apr. 29, 1958, [1964] 15 U. S. T. 1607, 1610, T. I. A. S. No. 5639 (hereinafter Convention). See United States v. Louisiana, 470 U. S. 93, 113 (1985) (Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case); United States v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 11, 22 (1969). To claim a body of water as historic inland water, it is therefore important to establish that the right to exclude innocent passage has somehow been asserted, even if never actually exercised. See Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, 470 U. S., at 113, and n. 13. The Court also has considered the “vital interests of the United States” in designating waters as historic inland waters. Id., at 103.
The Special Master recommended that the Court grant summary judgment to the United States on this count. The Special Master first made a thorough examination of historical documents, from 1821 to the present, bearing on the status of the Alexander Archipelago’s waters. The Special Master sorted these documents into five distinct periods: (1) Russian sovereignty (1821-1867), Report 23-38; (2) early American sovereignty (1867-1903), id., at 38-55; (3) the 1903 U. S.-Britain Boundary Arbitration, id., at 56-63; (4) later American sovereignty (1903-1959), id., at 63-89; and (5) the poststatehood era (1959-present), id., at 89-107. Based on his examination of the record evidence from all of these periods, the Special Master concluded that “Russia and the United States historically did not assert authority to exclude vessels from making innocent passage through the waters of the Alexander Archipelago.” Id., at 109. In the Special Master’s view, Alaska had at best “uncovered and presented only ‘questionable evidence’ that the United States exercised the kind of authority over the waters of the Archipelago that would be necessary to prove a historic waters claim.” Id., at 129.
Though Alaska’s failure to demonstrate that the waters of the Alexander Archipelago had historically been treated as inland waters would by itself justify granting summary judgment to the United States on count I, the Special Master also addressed other relevant factors, such as the acquiescence of other nations and the vital interests of the United States. In the Special Master’s view these factors only strengthened the case for granting summary judgment to the United States.
Excepting to the Special Master’s recommendation on count I, Alaska contends the Special Master gave too little weight to historical events that tend to support Alaska’s position. By the same token Alaska argues the Special Master gave too much weight to historical events that tend to undermine its position. Alaska also asserts that foreign nations have acquiesced in the treatment of the waters of the Alexander Archipelago as inland waters, and that the interests of the United States support such treatment. We find Alaska’s arguments unconvincing.
Rather than canvassing the entire historical record discussed by the Special Master in his thorough, commendable report, we turn our attention to the events Alaska presents as its best evidence that the Alexander Archipelago’s waters qualify as historic inland waters.
A
First in time among the events to which Alaska points are incidents from the period of Russian sovereignty. These incidents are pertinent to the inquiry because, as we have held, when Russia ceded the territory of Alaska to the United States in 1867, “the United States thereby acquired whatever dominion Russia had possessed.” Alaska (Cook Inlet), 422 U. S., at 192, n. 13.
In 1824, the United States and Russia entered into a treaty that, inter alia, granted United States vessels the right, over the next 10 years, to “frequent, without any hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulphs, harbours, and creeks [of the Alexander Archipelago], for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives of the country.” See Convention Between the United States of America and Russia, Art. 4, 8 Stat. 304 (1825) (hereinafter 1824 Treaty or Treaty). In Alaska’s view this Treaty demonstrates that “the Russian claim extended to the entire Archipelago” and thus that Russia treated the archipelago waters as inland waters. Exceptions to Report of Special Master and Brief in Support for Plaintiff 29 (hereinafter Exceptions and Brief for Plaintiff Alaska). The principal problem with Alaska’s assertion is that the 1824 Treaty by its terms did not address navigation for the purpose of innocent passage, but rather addressed only navigation “for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives.” Even on the questionable assumption that the Treaty’s reference to “interior seas” included all the waters of the Alexander Archipelago and not just waters within three nautical miles of the coast of the mainland or any particular island, but see Report 27-28 (refuting this assumption), the Treaty simply does not provide evidence that Russia asserted a right to exclude innocent passage. Yet evidence of the assertion of this right — not some lesser right — must be provided to support a historic inland waters claim. See Alaska (Cook Inlet), supra, at 197.
Upon the expiration of the 10-year right granted to United States vessels by virtue of the 1824 Treaty, Russia stationed a brig, the Chichagoff, at the southern border of Russian America. Alaska implies that Russia’s purpose in stationing the brig there was to exclude any foreign vessels from entering the Alexander Archipelago’s waters. See Exceptions and Brief for Plaintiff Alaska 30-31. Were we to accept this interpretation of the Chichagoff incident, we would acknowledge it as some evidence that Russia treated the Alexander Archipelago’s waters as inland waters.
As the Special Master noted, however, a report prepared for the 1903 Alaskan Boundary Tribunal (a tribunal we will discuss further) described the Chichagoff incident as follows:
“Governor Wrangell sent the brig Chichagoff, under command of Lieutenant Zarembo, to Tongas, near the southern boundary line at 54° 40', for the purpose of intercepting foreign vessels entering the inland waters of the colony, to the masters of which he was to deliver written notice of the expiration of the treaty provisions, being furnished with six copies for American and three for British vessels.” 1 Proceedings of the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal, S. Doc. No. 162,58th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, p. 70 (1904) (hereinafter ABT Proceedings) (footnote omitted).
Like the Special Master, we see nothing in this passage to indicate that Russia, through its actions with respect to the Chichagoff, asserted a right to exclude from the Alexander Archipelago waters foreign vessels engaged only in innocent passage. By giving written notice of the expiration of the 1824 Treaty rights, the Chichagoff reminded American mariners that they were no longer free to trade with the natives, or to approach within cannon shot of the Russian lands “without any hindrance whatever.” 1824 Treaty, Art. 4, 8 Stat. 304. Russia did not assert thereby the more sweeping right to exclude even vessels engaged only in innocent passage.
Alaska also points to evidence that in 1836 Russian forces apprehended and boarded the American vessel Loriot while it was within the Alexander Archipelago waters, and then ordered it “ ‘to leave the waters of His Imperial Majesty.’ ” Exceptions and Brief for Plaintiff Alaska 30; see also Letter from John Forsyth to G. M. Dallas (May 4, 1837), reprinted in Report of Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard upon the Seal Fisheries in the Bering Sea, S. Exec. Doc. No. 106, 50th Cong., 2d Sess., 232-233 (1889). Even this incident does not constitute evidence that Russia viewed the archipelago waters as inland waters, however, because the Loriot was not engaged in innocent passage. The Loriofs mission, as freely admitted in a contemporary letter written by a State Department official to a member of the United States legation in St. Petersburg, was to visit “the northwest coast of America, for the purpose of procuring provisions, and also Indians to hunt for sea otter on the said coast.” Id., at 232. By excluding the Loriot, which evidently had tried to exceed the limits of mere “innocent passage,” Russia did not, and could not, assert a right to exclude vessels engaged solely in innocent passage.
In sum, none of the incidents Alaska cites from the period of Russian sovereignty support the proposition that Russia treated the waters of the Alexander Archipelago as inland waters prior to ceding Alaska to the United States in 1867.
B
For the period of early U. S. sovereignty between 1867 and 1903, Alaska cites not a single incident demonstrating that the United States acted in a manner consistent with an understanding that the Alexander Archipelago waters were inland. Alaska thus leaves itself with at most 56 years to demonstrate continuous prestatehood treatment of the Alexander Archipelago as inland waters. This alone constitutes a substantial weakness in Alaska’s position.
As to the years between 1867 and 1903, Alaska does attempt to explain away a significant event which undercuts its claim, but this attempt is unsuccessful. In 1886, Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard wrote a letter to Secretary of Treasury Daniel Manning concerning the limits of the territorial waters of the United States on both the northeastern and the northwestern coasts. See 1 J. Moore, Digest of International Law 718-721 (1906). The State Department’s position with respect to waters surrounding fringing islands on both coasts was that the sovereigns of those islands could only claim a territorial sea of three miles from the coast of each island. Secretary Bayard explained that, in asserting the 3-mile belt of territorial sea, the United States denied neither “the free right of vessels of other nations to pass, on peaceful errands, through this zone” nor the right “of relief, when suffering from want of necessaries, from the shore.” Id., at 720-721 (internal quotation marks omitted).
According to Secretary Bayard, the State Department’s position was a well-considered one, rooted in principles of reciprocity and consistent practice:
“These rights we insist on being conceded to our fishermen in the northeast, where the mainland is under the British sceptre. We can not refuse them to others on our northwest coast, where the sceptre is held by the United States. We asserted them... against Russia, thus denying to her jurisdiction beyond three miles on her own marginal seas. We can not claim greater jurisdiction against other nations, of seas washing territories which we derived from Russia under the Alaska purchase.” Id., at 721 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Special Master singled out this letter as “unambiguously support[ing] the United States’ position that the United States and Russia historically did not assert the right to exclude foreign vessels from the waters of the Archipelago.” Report 109. Emphasizing the statements in the letter that the United States could not “‘claim greater jurisdiction’” than three miles of marginal seas and that foreign vessels had the right to make “‘free transit,’” the Special Master concluded that “[o]fficials who held this belief could not, and evidently did not, claim that the United States could exclude innocent passage through the waters.” Id., at 110.
Alaska argues that Secretary Bayard’s letter is of minimal relevance because “it was internal correspondence that primarily addressed a dispute on the East coast” and thus “did not announce to any foreign nation that the United States had abandoned a claim to the Archipelago.” Exceptions and Brief for Plaintiff Alaska 31-32. Alaska’s arguments are unpersuasive. That Secretary Bayard’s letter referred to the east coast in no way diminishes the unequivocal nature of its statements with respect to the Alaskan coast. It may be true that no foreign nation ever became aware of Secretary Bayard’s letter (though the subsequent publication of the letter in the United States’ Digest of International Law gives us reason to believe the contrary). Regardless, Secretary Bayard’s letter still provides strong evidence that the United States, as of 1886, did not claim a right to exclude all foreign vessels from the Alexander Archipelago waters and had no intention of doing so. We do not need to parse the letter to see whether it “announce[d] to any foreign nation that the United States had abandoned a claim to the Archipelago,” for Alaska can muster no proof that the United States as of 1886 had made any such claim in the first place.
C
A stronger piece of evidence Alaska identifies to support its historic inland waters claim is a litigating position taken by the United States during an arbitration proceeding in 1903. This proceeding was before the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal, a body convened to resolve a dispute between the United States and Britain regarding the land boundary between southeastern Alaska and Canada. Report 56-63, 116-119.
In a written submission to the tribunal, the United States described its view of the “political coast” of Alaska as enclosing all of the Alexander Archipelago waters, as shown on the map in Appendix A, infra. 4 ABT Proceedings, pt. 1, pp. 31-32 (1903). According to the United States’ submissions, “[t]he boundary of Alaska, — that is, the exterior boundary from which the marine league [of the territorial sea] is measured, — runs along the outer edge of the Alaskan or Alexander Archipelago, embracing a group composed of hundreds of islands.” 5 id., pt. 1, at 15-16. At oral argument before the tribunal, moreover, counsel for the United States made explicit that the recognition of such a “political coast” would render all waters landward of it “just as much interior waters as the interior waters of Loch Lomond.” 7 id., at 611 (1904).
Before the Special Master in the instant case, the United States sought to discount as mere hypothetical statements the submissions it had made at the tribunal a full century prior. The Special Master rejected this view and instead agreed with Alaska that in its submissions to the tribunal the United States “was expressing a considered analysis of the [Alexander Archipelago] area, not merely speaking hypothetically for the purpose of showing a flaw in Britain’s argument.” Report 61. Ultimately, however, the Special Master still concluded that the United States’ submissions to the tribunal were “not an adequate assertion of authority over the waters of the Alexander Archipelago.” Id., at 118. The Special Master noted that the issue before the 1903 tribunal was not “[t]he status of the waters of the Alexander Archipelago,” ibid., but rather the land boundary between southeast Alaska and Canada; that the United States’ declarations regarding the status of the Alexander Archipelago took up “only a few paragraphs in a seven volume record”; and that “[f]or these reasons, it would be unrealistic to conclude that counsel’s assertions at the tribunal should have made foreign nations (other than Britain) aware that the United States was asserting a right to exclude them,” ibid.
Alaska responds that the Special Master was incorrect to conclude that the United States’ submissions in 1903 could not have made foreign nations other than Britain aware of its claim. Alaska argues that Norway became aware of the United States’ submissions and then relied on them in its dispute with the United Kingdom in the well-known Fisheries Case (U. K. v. Nor.)) 1951 I. C. J. 116 (Judgment of Dec. 18). As the Special Master explained, however, “[t]he ability of one foreign nation to discover the United States’ argument when litigating a related issue... does not mean that foreign nations should have known of the United States’ position.” Report 118, n. 34. This reasoning carries particular force in light of the precedent a contrary conclusion would create. If this Court were to recognize historic inland waters claims based on arguments made by counsel during litigation about nonmaritime boundaries, “the United States would itself become vulnerable to similarly weak claims by other nations that would restrict the freedom of the seas.” Reply Brief for United States in Response to Exceptions of the State of Alaska 15-16 (hereinafter Reply Brief for United States). We are reluctant to create a precedent that would have this effect.
D
The litigating position taken by the United States at the ABT Proceedings at best would provide weak support for inland status of the Alexander Archipelago waters even were we to accept it as signaling a significant change from the view expressed in Secretary Bayard’s letter of 1886; for there is little evidence that the United States later acted in a manner consistent with this litigating position. Alaska says that the United States asserted control over the waters by enacting and enforcing fishery regulations in the Alexander Archipelago during the first half of the 20th century. Exceptions and Brief for Plaintiff Alaska 25-29. In particular, Alaska cites the 1906 Alien Fishing Act, 34 Stat. 263, which prohibited foreign, but not domestic, commercial fishing “in any of the waters of Alaska.” As its sole evidence that the Act was enforced even in the pockets and enclaves at issue, Alaska cites the seizure by the United States Coast Guard in 1924 of the Canadian vessel Marguerite, whose captain was fined $100 for fishing in contravention of the Act.
Assuming, arguendo, that the Marguerite was seized in one of the disputed pockets or enclaves, a point which the Special Master found unclear, Report 67-68, this one incident hardly suffices to demonstrate a continuous policy. Indeed, contrary authority exists. In 1934 the Departments of State and Commerce exchanged letters expressing their shared understanding that the United States lacked the power to enforce the Act more than three miles from the shore of any island or the mainland. Id., at 70-71 (quoting Letter from Daniel C. Roper, Secretary of Commerce, to Secretary of State 1 (Sept. 5,1934) (“ ‘Canadian fishermen may operate [in the Alexander Archipelago waters] so long as they remain outside the three mile limit’ ”); and Letter from William Phillips, Under Secretary of State, to Secretary of Commerce 1 (Sept. 13, 1934) (expressing appreciation for the assurance “ ‘that the Fishery laws and regulations will be enforced by the Bureau of Fisheries in conformity with the view that Canadian fishermen may operate [in the Alexander Archipelago waters] so long as they remain outside the three-mile limit’ ”)). This understanding was inconsistent with a view of the Alexander Archipelago waters as inland. Report 70-71,110-111.
Even were the seizure of the Marguerite taken as evidence of a right asserted by the United States in 1924, the official correspondence cited by the Special Master establishes that by 1934 the United States had reverted to the position taken in Secretary Bayard’s 1886 letter. As the United States observes, furthermore, the fact that Britain protested the seizure of the Marguerite indicates that any claim of right implied from that seizure was not one in which foreign nations acquiesced. Reply Brief for United States 17, n. 10.
Alaska also refers to various poststatehood events which, in its view, confirm the status of the Alexander Archipelago waters as inland waters. We find insufficient prestatehood evidence to establish inland waters status in the first place, and so we find it unnecessary to discuss these further events.
At best, Alaska’s submissions before this Court establish that the United States made one official statement — in the 1903 Alaska Boundary Arbitration — describing the Alexander Archipelago waters as inland, and that the United States seized one foreign vessel — the Marguerite — in a manner arguably consistent with the status of those waters as inland. These incidents are insufficient to demonstrate the continuous assertion of exclusive authority, with acquiescence of foreign nations, necessary to support a historic inland waters claim. Alaska’s exception to the Special Master’s recommendation on count I of the Amended Complaint is overruled.
IV
In count II of its Amended Complaint, Alaska presents an alternative theory to justify treating the Alexander Archipelago’s waters as inland. Alaska’s alternative theory is that the waters of the Alexander Archipelago in truth consist of two vast, but as yet unnoticed, juridical bays. Waters within a juridical bay would be deemed inland waters. Art. 5(1) of the Convention, 15 U. S. T., at 1609. Thus, if accepted, Alaska’s theory would render all the Alexander Archipelago’s waters inland waters to the extent they lie within the limits of the bays Alaska identifies. For this reason, and because the United States would not be able to rebut the presumption of title that would arise from inland waters status, Alaska’s alternative theory would require the Court to accept Alaska’s claim of title to the pockets and enclaves in dispute.
The parties agree that Alaska’s claimed juridical bays would exist only if four of the Alexander Archipelago’s islands — Kuiu Island, Kupreanof Island, Mitkof Island, and Dry Island — were deemed to be connected to each other and to the mainland. We have recognized that such “assimilation]” of islands fringing the mainland is possible, albeit only in “exceptional case[s]” in which “an island or group of islands... ‘are so integrally related to the mainland that they are realistically parts of the “coast.”’” United States v. Maine, 469 U. S. 504, 517 (1985) (quoting United States v. Louisiana, 394 U. S., at 66). If the assimilation Alaska urges were accepted, the four islands Alaska has identified would form a constructive peninsula extending from the mainland and dividing the Alexander Archipelago’s waters in two. To bolster its case, Alaska labels the waters north and south of this hypothetical peninsula the “North Bay” and the “South Bay.” See Appendix B, infra (map showing Alaska’s hypothetical peninsula and the resulting bays).
Were we to accept Alaska’s hypothetical peninsula, we would then be required to determine whether North Bay and South Bay in fact qualify as juridical bays under the Convention, which we have customarily consulted for purposes of “determining the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters of the States.” United States v. Maine, supra, at 513. Article 7(2) of the Convention sets forth the following geographic criteria for deciding whether a body of water qualifies as a bay:
“For the purposes of these articles, a bay is a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain landlocked waters and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. An indentation shall not, however, be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation.” 15 U. S. T., at 1609.
This definition can be understood to comprise a number of elements. To apply the definition to a given body of water, one must first determine whether the body of water satisfies the descriptive test of being a “well-marked indentation.” One must then determine, among other things, whether the indentation’s area satisfies the mathematical “semi-circle” test set forth in the second sentence of Article 7(2).
After due consideration of the parties’ arguments, the Special Master recommended that the Court reject Alaska’s alternative theory. The Special Master first conducted a detailed assessment of the propriety of assimilating the four islands in question in order to form the constructive peninsula so critical to Alaska’s theory. Report 147-197. Applying the principles set forth in United States v. Maine, supra, at 514-520, and United States v. Louisiana, supra, at 60-66, the Special Master concluded that assimilation would be unwarranted save for two inconsequential channels that “do not suffice to create the juridical bays alleged by Alaska.” Report 197. In the alternative, the Special Master concluded that, even were Alaska’s hypothetical peninsula accepted, neither “North Bay” nor “South Bay” could satisfy the descriptive test that a proposed bay constitute a “ ‘well-marked indentation.’” Id., at 222.
Excepting to the Special Master’s recommendations, Alaska makes a detailed argument that this Court’s precedents regarding assimilation of islands support recognition of the constructive peninsula Alaska has identified. Exceptions and Brief for Plaintiff Alaska 39-45. Alaska further contends that, once this peninsula is recognized, the resulting bodies of water satisfy all the criteria set forth in the Convention. Id., at 45-49.
We overrule Alaska’s exception. For the sake of brevity we assume, arguendo, that each of the islands in Alaska’s hypothetical peninsula should be assimilated one to another (though we are aware of, and Alaska itself cites, no precedent foreign or domestic in which such a massive amount of successive assimilation has been accepted for the purpose of identifying a juridical bay). Even with the benefit of this daunting doubt Alaska could not prevail, for its hypothetical bays do not satisfy the Convention’s descriptive requirement of being well-marked indentations.
To qualify as a well-marked indentation, a body of water must possess physical features that would allow a mariner looking at navigational charts that do not depict bay closing lines nonetheless to perceive the bay’s limits, and hence to avoid illegal encroachment into inland waters. See G. West-erman, The Juridical Bay 82-85 (1987). Alaska’s hypothetical bays do not possess these features. We have been referred to no authority which indicates that a mariner looking at an unadorned map of the southeast Alaskan coast has ever discerned the limits of Alaska’s hypothetical bays. So subtle are these limits that even Alaska itself did not discover them until after it had filed its first complaint in this action. Compare Complaint to Quiet Title (Nov. 24,1999) with Amended Complaint (Dec. 14, 2000). The test is what mariners see, not what litigators invent. Alaska’s hypothetical bays would not be discernible to the eye of the mariner.
A comparison to United States v. Maine, 469 U. S., at 514-520, makes clear the force of our conclusion. In that case the Court considered whether Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound together qualify as a juridical bay. In determining that they do, the Court held that Long Island itself should be assimilated to the mainland. Id., at 517-520. The Court then determined that the resulting indentation formed by Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound satisfied the requirements of Article 7(2) of the Convention, including the descriptive requirement of being a “well-marked indentation.” Id., at 515, 519.
There is a critical difference between this body of water and the bodies of water Alaska has christened as North Bay and South Bay. Even before this Court held that Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound qualified together as a juridical bay, mariners and geographers had recognized Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound as adjacent, cohesive bodies of water — indeed, as “sound[s],” which itself is a term used to describe a wide and deep bay, or a strait connecting other bodies of water. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2176 (1981) (defining “sound” as “a long and rather broad inlet of the ocean generally with its larger part extending roughly parallel to the coast”; “a long passage of water connecting two larger bodies but too wide and extensive to be termed a strait”). Nothing of the sort can be said of Alaska’s claimed bays. It is not just that no mariner and no geographer (and not even Alaska’s litigators) before this action recognized Alaska’s claimed bays as bays or sounds. It appears that no one before this action recognized Alaska’s claimed bays as constituting cohesive bodies of water at all.
Even accepting the constructive peninsula Alaska has crafted out of four separate islands within the Alexander Archipelago, Alaska’s claimed bays still fail to qualify as “well-marked indentation^]” for purposes of the Convention. For this reason, we reject the alternative theory Alaska urges in count II of its Amended Complaint. Alaska
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This is a companion case to Eagles v. Samuels, No. 59, decided this day, ante p. 304. Certiorari also brings it here from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That court followed the same procedure here as it did in Samuels’ case; it reversed the District Court which had dismissed the writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of Horowitz, and remanded the cause to the District Court with directions to discharge him from military custody. 151 F. 2d 801.
It appears that after the remand Horowitz was enlarged upon a recognizance as permitted under our rules. Rule 45. The suggestion that the case is therefore moot is without merit for the reasons stated in Samuels’ case.
Horowitz registered pursuant to the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, early in 1941 and filed a questionnaire stating he was a college student preparing for a career as a psychiatric social worker. At the time, he asked for a deferment in induction until February, 1943, saying that “if you take me now, you practically negate my possibilities to attain the position I seek in life, namely, a psychiatric social worker.” Shortly after he was physically examined and found qualified for military service, he advised the local board that he had been enrolled in the Rabbinical Seminary of America, a recognized theological school. On July 1, 1941, he was classified I-A. The board of appeal likewise gave him that classification in August, 1941.
Meanwhile, he claimed exemption under § 5 (d) of the Act. The basis of his claim was the representation that he was a student in a recognized theological school for rabbis and was preparing for the rabbinate. In an affidavit he stated that he had not disclosed his intention to become a rabbi because he had no “concrete facts” to present, only “hopes.” In November, 1941, the local board classified him IY-D, which classification he retained until May, 1944. In 1942 he filed an occupational questionnaire with the local board, stating that he was taking a course in rabbinical studies at the seminary and also a bachelor of social science course at another institution which he hoped to complete in 1944. He listed himself as a social worker.
In April, 1944, the city director of Selective Service reviewed the file and requested Horowitz to appear before an advisory theological panel. He appeared before a panel and there was a hearing. The panel stated that all students in this seminary were not necessarily preparing for the ministry and that each individual case should be separately appraised. It concluded that his attendance at the seminary had been motivated by a desire to secure a basis for exemption under the Act. This was based on his declared intention early in 1941 to be a social worker, inconsistencies in his explanation of his failure to refer to the rabbinate at that time, his indifferent and unsystematic manner in preparing for that professed objective, and an appraisal of his reliability and candor. The transcript of proceedings before the panel and later the report were transmitted to the local board by the office of the city director of Selective Service with a request to the board to reopen and reconsider his classification. The report made by the panel was not signed. Moreover, the report was headed “Confidential Statement for the Record.” The local board was advised by the city director’s office that, while it should give careful consideration to the recommendation of the panel, determination of the classification must be made by the board itself or by an appeal agency.
Horowitz was immediately reclassified as I-A. He asked for a hearing which was granted. It appears that the panel which interviewed him and rendered the report was composed of three prominent Jewish laymen but no rabbi. Whether that was the cause does not appear, but the board, as a result of the hearing, referred the file to a rabbi for another advisory recommendation. The rabbi recommended that Horowitz be classified IV-D. The local board gave him that classification in June, 1944. In August, 1944, the local board held another hearing. Horowitz was present and was examined. The board concluded that he should be in I-A and so classified him, stating as its reason that he became a student in the rabbinical school after he had registered under the Act. He requested and was granted another hearing, at which he submitted additional evidence. The local board refused to change the classification. On appeal the board of appeal classified him as I-A.
On two subsequent occasions Horowitz asked that his classification be reopened and submitted additional evidence. The board was unpersuaded and refused to ré-open the classification. The office of the city director advised the boards that the panel which interviewed Horowitz was composed solely of laymen and that, if by virtue of that fact the board of appeal desired to reconsider the case, to inform the office. Both the local board and the board of appeal replied that there was no occasion for reopening the classification. The board of appeal stated that it had “once again unanimously agreed that the registrant’s status does not warrant a IV-D classification.” Early in 1945 Horowitz was inducted into the Army.
Horowitz relies upon affidavits and statements from various people concerning the bona fides of his professed desire to become a rabbi, on a statement made when he graduated from the public schools in 1932 that that was his ambition in life, on the fact that he stated in 1936 that his first vocational choice was the rabbinate, and on all of his subsequent activities which, he asserted, fitted into that pattern. On the other hand, it does appear that in 1937 his first vocational choice was teaching, his second the rabbinate. Furthermore, as already noted, his professed objective stated to the local board early in 1941 was social work. And he in fact entered the seminary shortly after he had passed his physical examination and qualified for military service. These circumstances alone make his claim to exemption colorable. Certainly we cannot say that the action of the board of appeal in finally classifying him as I-A was without any support in the evidence.
The question remains whether there was anything in the administrative procedure which vitiated Horowitz’ classification. What we have said about the use of a theological panel and the range of its inquiry in Eagles v. Sam-uels, supra, need not be repeated here. There is nothing in the present case which makes for a different result. We can no more conclude here, than in Samuels’ case, that the board abdicated its function. It first followed the panel’s recommendation. But its mind was not closed, as evidenced by the fact that it later sought the advice of a rabbi and followed his recommendation. And when it returned to its earlier position, it proceeded on the ground that the basic defect in Horowitz’ case was the shift in his position in 1941 after he had registered. The record shows indecision by the board but no subservience to the panel. As respects the fact that the panel’s report was unsigned, only a word need be added. Horowitz, like Samuels, appeared in person before the panel and saw its members face to face. At no time does it appear that he sought the identity of the members and was refused the information.
The essential procedural differences between this case and Samuels’ are two — it appears that this panel was composed entirely of laymen; and its report was not only unsigned but marked confidential for the file. The first objection carries little weight. These laymen were prominent citizens of the Jewish faith. There is no showing that they were of a sect hostile to Horowitz. There is nothing to impeach their integrity or to suggest that they were not qualified to serve in the expert role assigned to them.
The fact that their report was marked confidential is given great emphasis. It is argued that although the use of a theological panel may be authorized, there is no warrant for clothing its action in such secrecy.
The regulations, indeed, prescribe that no information in a registrant’s file shall be confidential as to him or any one having written authority from him. Section 605.32 (a), 8 Fed. Reg. 2641, 9 Fed. Reg. 9190. But the difficulty here is that it is not shown that the panel’s report was in fact treated as confidential by the local board. It is not shown that Horowitz sought and was denied access to the report. Nor is it shown that when Horowitz examined the file the report was not made available to him. If those were the facts, we do not doubt that Horowitz’ counsel would have established them at the habeas corpus hearing. We find no command to the local board to keep the report confidential. We cannot presume that the board violated the regulations. Yet that is in effect what we are asked to hold. Horowitz, like Samuels, points to possibilities of abuse in the use of the panél. But like Samuels he fails to establish prejudice in his case. The judgment below must therefore be
Reversed.
The approach of the panel to the question is shown as follows in its statement:
“Orthodox tradition has always encouraged advanced study of talmudic' literature, both privately and at academies instituted for that purpose, irrespective of the specific occupational objectives of those engaged in such study, and all courses offered by these academies are open to qualified students without regard to the individual student’s specific intention to prepare for a career of service in the rabbinate.
“Thus, a student ultimately intending to enter business or a profession, or some non-rabbinic activity in the field of religion, may be enrolled in the same courses attended by other students who are specifically concerned with preparation for the rabbinate. It is, therefore, essential for purposes of Selective Service classification to determine in each individual case the purpose which the registrant has in mind in pursuing his course of study.
“Moreover, the fact that the religious tradition in question does not attempt to distinguish between the serious student of talmudic literature and the student preparing for a professional career in the rabbinate, tends to make it extremely difficult for school ofi-ciáis, ministers, and others identified with that tradition, to have and express an objective judgment in such matters.
“To the extent that the distinction is understood, there is a tendency to accept at face value assertions made by the registrant and members of his family and to resolve any doubt in his favor, where it is at least apparent that he is a serious and pious talmudic student.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case presents the question whether the provision of Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. c. 32, § 26 (3) (a) (1966), that a uniformed state police officer “shall be retired . . . upon his attaining age fifty,” denies appellee police officer equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Appellee Robert Murgia was an officer in the Uniformed Branch of the Massachusetts State Police. The Massachusetts Board of Retirement retired him upon his 50th birthday. Appellee brought this civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that the operation of § 26 (3) (a) denied him equal protection of the laws and requesting the convening of a three-judge court under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284. The District Judge dismissed appellee’s complaint on the ground that the complaint did not allege a substantial constitutional question. 345 F. Supp. 1140 (1972), On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in an unreported memorandum, set aside the District Court judgment and remanded the case with direction to convene a three-judge court. Upon a record consisting of depositions, affidavits, and other documentary material submitted by the parties, the three-judge court filed an opinion that declared § 26 (3) (a) unconstitutional on the ground that “a classification based on age 50 alone lacks a rational basis in furthering any substantial state interest,” and enjoined enforcement of the statute. 376 F. Supp. 753, 754 (1974). We noted probable jurisdiction, 421 U. S. 974 (1975), and now reverse.
The primary function of the Uniformed Branch of the Massachusetts State Police is to protect persons and property and maintain law and order. Specifically, uniformed officers participate in controlling prison and civil disorders, respond to emergencies and natural disasters, patrol highways in marked cruisers, investigate crime, apprehend criminal suspects, and provide backup support for local law enforcement personnel. As the District Court observed, “service in this branch is, or can be, arduous.” 376 F. Supp., at 754. “[H]igh versatility is required, with few, if any, backwaters available for the partially superannuated.” Ibid. Thus, “even [appellee’s] experts concede that there is a general relationship between advancing age and decreasing physical ability to respond to the demands of the job.” Id., at 755.
These considerations prompt the requirement that uniformed state officers pass a comprehensive physical examination biennially until age 40. After that, until mandatory retirement at age 50, uniformed officers must pass annually a more rigorous examination, including an electrocardiogram and tests for gastro-intestinal bleeding. Appellee Murgia had passed such an examination four months before he was retired, and there is no dispute that, when he retired, his excellent physical and mental health still rendered him capable of performing the duties of a uniformed officer.
The record includes the testimony of three physicians: that of the State Police Surgeon, who testified to the physiological and psychological demands involved in the performance of uniformed police functions; that of an associate professor of medicine, who testified generally to the relationship between aging and the ability to perform under stress; and that of a surgeon, who also testified to aging and the ability safely to perform police functions. The testimony clearly established that the risk of physical failure, particularly in the cardiovascular system, increases with age, and that the number of individuals in a given age group incapable of performing stress functions increases with the age of the group. App. 77-78, 174-176. The testimony also recognized that particular individuals over 50 could be capable of safely performing the functions of uniformed officers. The associate professor of medicine, who was a witness for the appellee, further testified that evaluating the risk of cardiovascular failure in a given individual would require a number of detailed studies. Id., at 77-78.
In assessing appellee’s equal protection claim, the District Court found it unnecessary to apply a strict-scrutiny test, see Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969), for it determined that the age classification established by the Massachusetts statutory scheme could not in any event withstand a test of rationality, see Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970). Since there had been no showing that reaching age 50 forecasts even “imminent change” in an officer’s physical condition, the District Court held that compulsory retirement at age 50 was irrational under a scheme that assessed the capabilities of officers individually by means of comprehensive annual physical examinations. We agree that rationality is the proper standard by which to test whether compulsory retirement at age 50 violates equal protection. We disagree, however, with the District Court’s determination that the age 50 classification is not rationally related to furthering a legitimate state interest.
I
We need state only briefly our reasons for agreeing that strict scrutiny is not the proper test for determining whether the mandatory retirement provision denies, appellee equal protection. San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 16 (1973), reaffirmed that equal protection analysis requires strict scrutiny of a legislative classification only when the classification impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class. Mandatory retirement at age 50 under the Massachusetts statute involves neither situation.
This Court’s decisions give no support to the proposition that a right of governmental employment per se is fundamental. See San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, supra; Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56, 73 (1972); Dandridge v. Williams, supra, at 485. Accordingly, we have expressly stated that a standard less than strict scrutiny “has consistently been applied to state legislation restricting the availability of employment opportunities.” Ibid.
Nor does the class of uniformed state police officers over 50 constitute a suspect class for purposes of equal protection analysis. Rodriguez, supra, at 28, observed that a suspect class is one “saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.” While the treatment of the aged in this Nation has not been wholly free of discrimination, such persons, unlike, say, those who have been discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin, have not experienced a “history of purposeful unequal treatment” or been subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities. The class subject to the compulsory retirement feature of the Massachusetts statute consists of uniformed state police officers over the age of 50. It cannot be said to discriminate only against the elderly. Rather, it draws the line at a certain age in middle life. But even old age does not define a “discrete and insular” group, United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152-153, n. 4 (1938), in need of “extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.” Instead, it marks a stage that each of us will reach if we live out our normal span. Even if the statute could be said to impose a penalty upon a class defined as the aged, it would not impose a distinction sufficiently akin to those classifications that we have found suspect to call for strict judicial scrutiny.
Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to subject the State’s resolution of competing interests in this case to the degree of critical examination that our cases under the Equal Protection Clause recently have characterized as “strict judicial scrutiny.”
II
We turn then to examine this state classification under the rational-basis standard. This inquiry employs a relatively relaxed standard reflecting the Court’s awareness that the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one. Perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary. Dandridge v. Williams, supra, at 485. Such action by a legislature is presumed to be valid.
In this case, the Massachusetts statute clearly meets the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause, for the State’s classification rationally furthers the purpose identified by the State: Through mandatory retirement at age 50, the legislature seeks to protect the public by assuring physical preparedness of its uniformed police. Since physical ability generally declines with age, mandatory retirement at 50 serves to remove from police service those whose fitness for uniformed work presumptively has diminished with age. This clearly is rationally related to the State’s objective. There is no indication that § 26 (3) (a) has the effect of excluding from service so few officers who are in fact unqualified as to render age 50 a criterion wholly unrelated to the objective of the statute.
That the State chooses not to determine fitness more precisely through individualized testing after age 50 is not to say that the objective of assuring physical fitness is not rationally furthered by a maximum-age limitation. It is only to say that with regard to the interest of all concerned, the State perhaps has not chosen the best means to accomplish this purpose. But where rationality is the test, a State “does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect.” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S., at 485.
We do not make light of the substantial economic and psychological effects premature and compulsory retirement can have on an individual; nor do we denigrate the ability of elderly citizens to continue to contribute to society. The problems of retirement have been well documented and are beyond serious dispute. But “[w]e do not decide today that the [Massachusetts statute] is wise, that it best fulfills the relevant social and economic objectives that [Massachusetts] might ideally espouse, or that a more just and humane system could not be devised.” Id., at 487. We decide only that the system enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature does not deny appellee equal protection of the laws.
The judgment is reversed.
Mb. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Uniformed state police officers are appointed under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. c. 22, § 9A (Supp. 1976-1977), which provides:
“Whenever the governor shall deem it necessary to provide more effectively for the protection of persons and property and for the maintenance of law and order in the commonwealth, he may authorize the commissioner to make additional appointments to the division of state police, together with such other employees as the governor may deem necessary for the proper administration thereof. . . . Said additional officers shall have and exercise within the commonwealth all the powers of constables, except the service of civil process, and of police officers and watchmen. ... No person who has not reached his nineteenth birthday nor any person who has passed his thirtieth birthday shall be enlisted for the first time as an officer of the division of state police, except that said maximum age qualification shall not apply in the ease of the enlistment of any woman as such an officer.”
In pertinent part e. 32, § 26 (3), provides:
“(a) ... Any . . . officer appointed under section nine A of chapter twenty-two . . . who has performed service in the division of state police in the department of public safety for not less than twenty years, shall be retired by the state board of retirement upon his attaining age fifty or upon the expiration of such twenty years, whichever last occurs.”
“(b) Any . . . officer . . . who has performed service . . . for not less than twenty years and who has not attained . . . age fifty in the case of an officer appointed under the said section nine A, shall be retired by the state board of retirement in case the rating board, after an examination of such officer or inspector by a registered physician appointed by it, shall report in writing to the state board of retirement that he is physically or mentally incapacitated for the performance of duty and that such incapacity is likely to be permanent.”
Since § 9A requires that new enlistees in the Uniformed Branch be no more than 30 years of age, few retirements are delayed past 50 until the expiration of 20 years’ service.
The question presented in this case was summarily treated in Cannon v. Guste, 423 U. S. 918 (1975), aff’g No. 74^3211 (May 6, 1975, ED La.); Weisbrod v. Lynn, 420 U. S. 940 (1975), aff’g 383 F. Supp. 933 (DC 1974); Mcllvaine v. Pennsylvania, 415 U. S. 986 (1974), dismissing appeal from 454 Pa. 129, 309 A. 2d 801 (1973). Our cursory consideration in those cases does not, of course, foreclose this opportunity to consider more fully that question. See, e. g., Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 670-671 (1974).
Jurisdiction was invoked pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1343, and declaratory and injunctive relief was sought under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2201, 2202. The equal protection denial was alleged to constitute a violation of 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Appellee made no claim under the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 602, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq.
E. g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973) (right of a uniquely private nature); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134 (1972) (right to vote); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969) (right of interstate travel); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23 (1968) (rights guaranteed by the First Amendment); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942) (right to procreate).
E. g., Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365 (1971) (alienage); McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184 (1964) (race); Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633 (1948) (ancestry).
See, e. g., San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 40-41 (1973); Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 88 (1940) ; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78-79 (1911).
See San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, supra, at 17.
A special legislative commission’s report preceding the enactment of the age-50 maximum for uniformed police stated: “The Division of State Police, by virtue of the nature of the work demanded of its members, undoubtedly requires comparatively young men of vigorous physique. The nature of the duties to be performed in all weathers is arduous in the extreme .... No argument is needed to demonstrate that men above middle life are not usually physically able to perform such duties.” Mass. H. Doc. No. 1582, p. 8 (1938). With these considerations in mind, the State’s Commissioner of Public Safety argued before the commission for provisions permitting retirement of state police at 45. The commission observed in response that it was “not prepared to say that the contention of the Commissioner of Public Safety, that [state police] over age forty-five should be eligible [for] retirement, is unsound as a matter of public policy.” Ibid. The commission, however, deferred the problem of setting retirement ages for the state police to special study, their sole reason for not recommending age 45 being the anticipated pension costs to the State, not the reasonableness of the age with respect to job qualification. Id., at 7-9. Though the age-50 limitation was not specifically proposed by the commission, but was ultimately enacted by the legislature after further study, Act of Aug. 12, 1939, c. 503, § 3 (1939), Mass. Acts & Resolves 737-738 (1939), it is apparent that the purpose of the limitation was to protect the public by assuring the ability of state police to respond to the demands of their jobs. See also Mass. H. Doc. No. 5316, pp. 16-17 (1967); Mass. H. Doc. No. 2500, pp. 21, 23-25 (1955). This purpose is also clearly implied by the State’s maximum-age scheme, which sets higher mandatory retirement ages for less demanding jobs. See Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. c. 32, §§ 1, 3 (2) (g), 26 (3) (a) (1966 and Supp. 1975).
Appellee seems to have suggested in oral argument that Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. c. 32, §§ 1, 3 (2) (g), 26 (3) (a), also deny equal protection through the job classification established by them. Tr. of Oral Arg. 14, 17-18. Any such argument, however, is unpersuasive. The sections do set a maximum retirement age for uniformed state officers which is less than that set for other law enforcement personnel. It has never been seriously disputed, if at all, however, that the work of uniformed state officers is more demanding than that of other state, or even municipal, law enforcement personnel. It is this difference in work demands that underlies the job classification. Mass. H, Doc. No. 2500, pp. 21-22 (1955).
Review of Massachusetts' maximum-age limitations by state legislative commissions has proceeded on the principle that “maximum retirement age for any group of employees should be that age at which the efficiency of a large majority of the employees in the group is such that it is in the public interest that they retire.” Id., at 7.
Indeed, were it not for the existing annual individual examinations through age 50, appellee would concede the rationality of mandatory retirement at 50. Tr. of Oral Arg. 22-23. The introduction of individual examinations, however, hardly defeats the rationality of the State’s scheme. In fact, it augments rationality since the legislative judgment to avoid the risk posed by even the healthiest 50-year-old officers would be implemented by annual individual examinations between ages 40 and 50 which serve to eliminate those younger officers who are not at least as healthy as the best 50-year-old officers.
E. g., M. Barron, The Aging American (1961); Cameron, Neuroses of Later Maturity, in Mental Disorders in Later Life 201 (0. Kaplan, 2d ed. 1956); Senate Special Committee on Aging, Developments in Aging: 1971 and January-March 1972, S. Rep. No. 92-784, pp. 48-53 (1972); Hearings before the Subcommittee on Retirement and the Individual of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., pts. 1 and 2, pp. 36-46, 87-100, 121-127, 212-217, 464-471 (1967).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that the United States Constitution requires a court to suppress a confession when the mental state of the defendant, at the time he made the confession, interfered with his “rational intellect” and his “free will.” Because this decision seemed to conflict with prior holdings of this Court, we granted certiorari. 474 U. S. 1050 (1986). We conclude that the admissibility of this kind of statement is governed by state rules of evidence, rather than by our previous decisions regarding coerced confessions and Miranda waivers. We therefore reverse.
I
On August 18, 1983, Officer Patrick Anderson of the Denver Police Department was in uniform, working in an off-duty capacity in downtown Denver. Respondent Francis Connelly approached Officer Anderson and, without any prompting, stated that he had murdered someone and wanted to talk about it. Anderson immediately advised respondent that he had the right to remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him in court, and that he had the right to an attorney prior to any police questioning. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Respondent stated that he understood these rights but he still wanted to talk about the murder. Understandably bewildered by this confession, Officer Anderson asked respondent several questions. Connelly denied that he had been drinking, denied that he had been taking any drugs, and stated that, in the past, he had been a patient in several mental hospitals. Officer Anderson again told Connelly that he was under no obligation to say anything. Connelly replied that it was “all right,” and that he would talk to Officer Anderson because his conscience had been bothering him. To Officer Anderson, respondent appeared to understand fully the nature of his acts. Tr. 19.
Shortly thereafter, Homicide Detective Stephen Antuna arrived. Respondent was again advised of his rights, and Detective Antuna asked him “what he had on his mind.” Id., at 24. Respondent answered that he had come all the way from Boston to confess to the murder of Mary Ann Junta, a young girl whom he had killed in Denver sometime during November 1982. Respondent was taken to police headquarters, and a search of police records revealed that the body of an unidentified female had been found in April 1983. Respondent openly detailed his story to Detective Antuna and Sergeant Thomas Haney, and readily agreed to take the officers to the scene of the killing. Under Con-nelly’s sole direction, the two officers and respondent pro-eeeded in a police vehicle to the location of the crime. Respondent pointed out the exact location of the murder. Throughout this episode, Detective Antuna perceived no indication whatsoever that respondent was suffering from any kind of mental illness. Id., at 33-34.
Respondent was held overnight. During an interview with the public defender’s office the following morning, he became visibly disoriented. He began giving confused answers to questions, and for the first time, stated that “voices” had told him to come to Denver and that he had followed the directions of these voices in confessing. Id., at 42. Respondent was sent to a state hospital for evaluation. He was initially found incompetent to assist in his own defense. By March 1984, however, the doctors evaluating respondent determined that he was competent to proceed to trial.
At a preliminary hearing, respondent moved to suppress all of his statements. Dr. Jeffrey Metzner, a psychiatrist employed by the state hospital, testified that respondent was suffering from chronic schizophrenia and was in a psychotic state at least as of August 17, 1983, the day before he confessed. Metzner’s interviews with respondent revealed that respondent was following the “voice of God.” This voice instructed respondent to withdraw money from the bank, to buy an airplane ticket, and to fly from Boston to Denver. When respondent arrived from Boston, God’s voice became stronger and told respondent either to confess to the killing or to commit suicide. Reluctantly following the command of the voices, respondent approached Officer Anderson and confessed.
Dr. Metzner testified that, in his expert opinion, respondent was experiencing “command hallucinations.” Id., at 56. This condition interfered with respondent’s “volitional abilities; that is, his ability to make free and rational choices.” Ibid. Dr. Metzner further testified that Connelly’s illness did not significantly impair his cognitive abilities. Thus, respondent understood the rights he had when Officer Anderson and Detective Antuna advised him that he need not speak. Id., at 56-57. Dr. Metzner admitted that the “voices” could in reality be Connelly’s interpretation of his own guilt, but explained that in his opinion, Connelly’s psychosis motivated his confession.
On the basis of this evidence the Colorado trial court decided that respondent’s statements must be suppressed because they were “involuntary.” Relying on our decisions in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293 (1963), and Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U. S. 568 (1961), the court ruled that a confession is admissible only if it is a product of the defendant’s rational intellect and “free will.” Tr. 88. Although the court found that the police had done nothing wrong or coercive in securing respondent’s confession, Connelly’s illness destroyed his volition and compelled him to confess. Id., at 89. The trial court also found that Connelly’s mental state vitiated his attempted waiver of the right to counsel and the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Accordingly, respondent’s initial statements and his custodial confession were suppressed. Id., at 90.
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. 702 P. 2d 722 (1985). In that court’s view, the proper test for admissibility is whether the statements are “the product of a rational intellect and a free will.” Id., at 728. Indeed, “the absence of police coercion or duress does not foreclose a finding of involuntariness. One’s capacity for rational judgment and free choice may be overborne as much by certain forms of severe mental illness as by external pressure.” Ibid. The court found that the very admission of the evidence in a court of law was sufficient state action to implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The evidence fully supported the conclusion that respondent’s initial statement was not the product of a rational intellect and a free will. The court then considered respondent’s attempted waiver of his constitutional rights and found that respondent’s mental condition precluded his ability to make a valid waiver. Id., at 729. The Colorado Supreme Court thus affirmed the trial court’s decision to suppress all of Connelly’s statements.
II
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Just last Term, in Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 109 (1985), we held that by virtue of the Due Process Clause “certain interrogation techniques, either in isolation or as applied to the unique characteristics of a particular suspect, are so offensive to a civilized system of justice that they must be condemned.” See also Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 432-434 (1986).
Indeed, coercive government misconduct was the catalyst for this Court’s seminal confession case, Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936). In that case, police officers extracted confessions from the accused through brutal torture. The Court had little difficulty concluding that even though the Fifth Amendment did not at that time apply to the States, the actions of the police were “revolting to the sense of justice.” Id., at 286. The Court has retained this due process focus, even after holding, in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964), that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination applies to the States. See Miller v. Fenton, supra, at 109-110.
Thus the cases considered by this Court over the 50 years since Brown v. Mississippi have focused upon the crucial element of police overreaching. While each confession case has turned on its own set of factors justifying the conclusion that police conduct was oppressive, all have contained a substantial element of coercive police conduct. Absent police conduct causally related to the confession, there is simply no basis for concluding that any state actor has deprived a criminal defendant of due process of law. Respondent correctly notes that as interrogators have turned to more subtle forms of psychological persuasion, courts have found the mental condition of the defendant a more significant factor in the “voluntariness” calculus. See Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315 (1959). But this fact does not justify a conclusion that a defendant’s mental condition, by itself and apart from its relation to official coercion, should ever dispose of the inquiry into constitutional “voluntariness.”
Respondent relies on Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U. S. 199 (1960), and Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293 (1963), for the proposition that the “deficient mental condition of the defendants in those cases was sufficient to render their confessions involuntary.” Brief for Respondent 20. But respondent’s reading of Blackburn and Townsend ignores the integral element of police overreaching present in both cases. In Blackburn, the Court found that the petitioner was probably insane at the time of his confession and the police learned during the interrogation that he had a history of mental problems. The police exploited this weakness with coercive tactics: “the eight- to nine-hour sustained interrogation in a tiny room which was upon occasion literally filled with police officers; the absence of Blackburn’s friends, relatives, or legal counsel; [and] the composition of the confession by the Deputy Sheriff rather than by Blackburn.” 361 U. S., at 207-208. These tactics supported a finding that the confession was involuntary. Indeed, the Court specifically condemned police activity that “wrings a confession out of an accused against his will.” Id., at 206-207. Townsend presented a similar instance of police wrongdoing. In that case, a police physician had given Townsend a drug with truth-serum properties. 372 U. S., at 298-299. The subsequent confession, obtained by officers who knew that Townsend had been given drugs, was held involuntary. These two cases demonstrate that while mental condition is surely relevant to an individual’s susceptibility to police coercion, mere examination of the confessant’s state of mind can never conclude the due process inquiry.
Our “involuntary confession” jurisprudence is entirely consistent with the settled law requiring some sort of “state action” to support a claim of violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Colorado trial court, of course, found that the police committed no wrongful acts, and that finding has been neither challenged by respondent nor disturbed by the Supreme Court of Colorado. The latter court, however, concluded that sufficient state action was present by virtue of the admission of the confession into evidence in a court of the State. 702 P. 2d, at 728-729.
The difficulty with the approach of the Supreme Court of Colorado is that it fails to recognize the essential link between coercive activity of the State, on the one hand, and a resulting confession by a defendant, on the other. The flaw in respondent’s constitutional argument is that it would expand our previous line of “voluntariness” cases into a far-ranging requirement that courts must divine a defendant’s motivation for speaking or acting as he did even though there be no claim that governmental conduct coerced his decision.
The most outrageous behavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a defendant does not make that evidence inadmissible under the Due Process Clause. See Walter v. United States, 447 U. S. 649, 656 (1980); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 487-488 (1971); Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465, 476 (1921). We have also observed that “[j Jurists and scholars uniformly have recognized that the exclusionary rule imposes a substantial cost on the societal interest in law enforcement by its proscription of what concededly is relevant evidence.” United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 448-449 (1976). See also United States v. Havens, 446 U. S. 620, 627 (1980); United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 (1974). Moreover, suppressing respondent’s statements would serve absolutely no purpose in enforcing constitutional guarantees. The purpose of excluding evidence seized in violation of the Constitution is to substantially deter future violations of the Constitution. See United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 906-913 (1984). Only if we were to establish a brand new constitutional right — the right of a criminal defendant to confess to his crime only when totally rational and properly motivated — could respondent’s present claim be sustained.
We have previously cautioned against expanding “currently applicable exclusionary rules by erecting additional barriers to placing truthful and probative evidence before state juries . . . .” Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 488-489 (1972). We abide by that counsel now. “[T]he central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence,” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 681 (1986), and while we have previously held that exclusion of evidence may be necessary to protect constitutional guarantees, both the necessity for the collateral inquiry and the exclusion of evidence deflect a criminal trial from its basic purpose. Respondent would now have us require sweeping inquiries into the state of mind of a criminal defendant who has confessed, inquiries quite divorced from any coercion brought to bear on the defendant by the State. We think the Constitution rightly leaves this sort of inquiry to be resolved by state laws governing the admission of evidence and erects no standard of its own in this area. A statement rendered by one in the condition of respondent might be proved to be quite unreliable, but this is a matter to be governed by the evidentiary laws of the forum, see, e. g., Fed. Rule Evid. 601, and not by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The aim of the requirement of due process is not to exclude presumptively false evidence, but to prevent fundamental unfairness in the use of evidence, whether true or false.” Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 236 (1941).
We hold that coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not “voluntary” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We also conclude that the taking of respondent’s statements, and their admission into evidence, constitute no violation of that Clause.
III
A
The Supreme Court of Colorado went on to affirm the trial court’s ruling that respondent’s later statements made while in custody should be suppressed because respondent had not waived his right to consult an attorney and his right to remain silent. That court held that the State must bear its burden of proving waiver of these Miranda rights by “clear and convincing evidence.” 702 P. 2d, at 729. Although we have stated in passing that the State bears a “heavy” burden in proving waiver, Tague v. Louisiana, 444 U. S. 469 (1980) (per curiam); North Carolina v. Butler 441 U. S. 369, 373 (1979); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 475, we have never held that the “clear and convincing evidence” standard is the appropriate one.
In Lego v. Twomey, supra, this Court upheld a procedure in which the State established the voluntariness of a confession by no more than a preponderance of the evidence. We upheld it for two reasons. First, the voluntariness determination has nothing to do with the reliability of jury verdicts; rather, it is designed to determine the presence of police coercion. Thus, voluntariness is irrelevant to the presence or absence of the elements of a crime, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970). Second, we rejected Lego’s assertion that a high burden of proof was required to serve the values protected by the exclusionary rule. We surveyed the various reasons for excluding evidence, including a violation of the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, supra, and we stated that “[i]n each instance, and without regard to its probative value, evidence is kept from the trier of guilt or innocence for reasons wholly apart from enhancing the reliability of verdicts.” Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S., at 488. Moreover, we rejected the argument that “the importance of the values served by exclusionary rules is itself sufficient demonstration that the Constitution also requires admissibility to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Ibid. Indeed, the Court found that “no substantial evidence has accumulated that federal rights have suffered from determining admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ibid.
We now reaffirm our holding in Lego: Whenever the State bears the burden of proof in a motion to suppress a statement that the defendant claims was obtained in violation of our Miranda doctrine, the State need prove waiver only by a preponderance of the evidence. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431, 444, and n. 5 (1984); United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164, 178, n. 14 (1974) (“[T]he controlling burden of proof at suppression hearings should impose no greater burden than proof by a preponderance of the evidence . . .”). Cf. Moore v. Michigan, 355 U. S. 155, 161-162 (1957). If, as we held in Lego v. Twomey, supra, the voluntariness of a confession need be established only by a preponderance of the evidence, then a waiver of the auxiliary protections established in Miranda should require no higher burden of proof. “[Exclusionary rules are very much aimed at deterring lawless conduct by police and prosecution and it is very doubtful that escalating the prosecution’s burden of proof in . . . suppression hearings would be sufficiently productive in this respect to outweigh the public interest in placing probative evidence before juries for the purpose of arriving at truthful decisions about guilt or innocence.” Lego v. Twomey, supra, at 489. See also United States v. Leon, 468 U. S., at 906-913.
B
We also think that the Supreme Court of Colorado was mistaken in its analysis of the question whether respondent had waived his Miranda rights in this case. Of course, a waiver must at a minimum be “voluntary” to be effective against an accused. Miranda, supra, at 444, 476; North Carolina v. Butler, supra, at 373. The Supreme Court of Colorado in addressing this question relied on the testimony of the court-appointed psychiatrist to the effect that respondent was not capable of making a “free decision with respect to his constitutional right of silence . . . and his constitutional right to confer with a lawyer before talking to the police.” 702 P. 2d, at 729.
We think that the Supreme Court of Colorado erred in importing into this area of constitutional law notions of “free will” that have no place there. There is obviously no reason to require more in the way of a “voluntariness” inquiry in the Miranda waiver context than in the Fourteenth Amendment confession context. The sole concern of the Fifth Amendment, on which Miranda was based, is governmental coercion. See United States v. Washington, 431 U. S. 181, 187 (1977); Miranda, supra, at 460. Indeed, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not concerned “with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.” Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, 305 (1985). The voluntariness of a waiver of this privilege has always depended on the absence of police overreaching, not on “free choice” in any broader sense of the word. See Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S., at 421 (“[T]he relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion or deception. . . . [T]he record is devoid of any suggestion that police resorted to physical or psychological pressure to elicit the statements”); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U. S. 707, 726-727 (1979) (The defendant was “not worn down by improper interrogation tactics or lengthy questioning or by trickery or deceit. . . . The officers did not intimidate or threaten respondent in any way. Their questioning was restrained and free from the abuses that so concerned the Court in Miranda”).
. Respondent urges this Court to adopt his “free will” rationale, and to find an attempted waiver invalid Whenever the defendant feels compelled to waive his rights by reason of any compulsion, even if the compulsion does not flow from the police. But such a treatment of the waiver issue would “cut this Court’s holding in [Miranda] completely loose from its own explicitly stated rationale.” Beckwith v. United States, 425 U. S. 341, 345 (1976). Miranda protects defendants against government coercion leading them to surrender rights protected by the Fifth Amendment; it goes no further than that. Respondent’s perception of coercion flowing from the “voice of God,” however important or significant such a perception may be in other disciplines, is a matter to which the United States Constitution does not speak.
I — i <1
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
E. g., Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385 (1978) (defendant subjected to 4-hour interrogation while incapacitated and sedated in intensive-care unit); Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U. S. 519 (1968) (defendant, on medication, interrogated for over 18 hours without food or sleep); Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U. S. 35 (1967) (police officers held gun to the head of wounded eonfessant to extract confession); Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737 (1966) (16 days of incommunicado interrogation in closed cell without windows, limited food, and coercive tactics); Reck v. Pate, 367 U. S. 433 (1961) (defendant held for four days with inadequate food and medical attention until confession obtained); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U. S. 568 (1961) (defendant held for five days of repeated questioning during which police employed coercive tactics); Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560 (1958) (defendant held incommunicado for three days with little food; confession obtained when officers informed defendant that Chief of Police was preparing to admit lynch mob into jail); Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143 (1944) (defendant questioned by relays of officers for 36 hours without an opportunity for sleep).
Even where there is causal connection between police misconduct and a defendant’s confession, it does not automatically follow that there has been a violation of the Due Process Clause. See, e. g., Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731, 739 (1969).
Petitioner conceded at oral argument that when Officer Anderson handcuffed respondent, the custody requirement of Miranda was satisfied. For purposes of our decision we accept that concession, and we similarly assume that the police officers “interrogated” respondent within the meaning of Miranda.
It is possible to read the opinion of the Supreme Court of Colorado as finding respondent’s Miranda waiver invalid on other grounds. Even if that is the ease, however, we nonetheless reverse the judgment in its entirety because of our belief that the Supreme Court of Colorado’s analysis was influenced by its mistaken view of “voluntariness” in the constitutional sense. Reconsideration of other issues, not inconsistent with our opinion, is of course open to the Supreme Court of Colorado on remand.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Congress has prohibited the provision of “material support or resources” to certain foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity. 18 U. S. C. § 2339B(a)(l). That prohibition is based on a finding that the specified organizations “are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.” Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), § 301(a)(7), 110 Stat. 1247, note following 18 U. S. C. §2339B (Findings and Purpose). The plaintiffs in this litigation seek to provide support to two such organizations. Plaintiffs claim that they seek to facilitate only the lawful, nonviolent purposes of those groups, and that applying the material-support law to prevent them from doing so violates the Constitution. In particular, they claim that the statute is too vague, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and that it infringes their rights to freedom of speech and association, in violation of the First Amendment. We conclude that the material-support statute is constitutional as applied to the particular activities plaintiffs have told us they wish to pursue. We do not, however, address the resolution of more difficult cases that may arise under the statute in the future.
I
This litigation concerns 18 U. S. C. § 2339B, which makes it a federal crime to “knowingly provid[e] material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.” Congress has amended the definition of “material support or resources” periodically, but at present it is defined as follows:
“[T]he term “material support or resources’ means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” § 2339A(b)(l); see also § 2339B(g)(4).
The authority to designate an entity a “foreign terrorist organization” rests with the Secretary of State. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1189(a)(1), (d)(4). She may, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, so designate an organization upon finding that it is foreign, engages in “terrorist activity” or “terrorism,” and thereby “threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.” §§ 1189(a)(1), (d)(4). “‘[N]ational security’ means the national defense, foreign relations, or economic interests of the United States.” § 1189(d)(2). An entity designated a foreign terrorist organization may seek review of that designation before the D. C. Circuit within 30 days of that designation. § 1189(e)(1).
In 1997, the Secretary of State designated 30 groups as foreign terrorist organizations. See 62 Fed. Reg. 52650. Two of those groups are the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (also known as the Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, or PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The PKK is an organization founded in 1974 with, the aim of establishing an independent Kurdish state in southeastern Turkey. Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1180-1181 (CD Cal. 1998); Brief for Petitioners in No. 08-1498, p. 6 (hereinafter Brief for Government). The LTTE is an organization founded in 1976 for the purpose of creating an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka. 9 F. Supp. 2d, at 1182; Brief for Government 6. The District Court in this action found that the PKK and LTTE engage in political and humanitarian activities. See 9 F. Supp. 2d, at 1180-1182. The Government has presented evidence that both groups have also committed numerous terrorist attacks, some of which have harmed American citizens. See App. 128-133. The LTTE sought judicial review of its designation as a foreign terrorist organization; the D. C. Circuit upheld that designation. See People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. Department of State, 182 F. 3d 17, 18-19, 25 (1999). The PKK did not challenge its designation. 9 F. Supp. 2d, at 1180.
Plaintiffs in this litigation are two U. S. citizens and six domestic organizations: the Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) (a human rights organization with consultative status to the United Nations); Ralph Fertig (the HLP’s president, and a retired Administrative Law Judge); Nagalingam Jeyalingam (a Tamil physician, born in Sri Lanka and a naturalized U. S. citizen); and five nonprofit groups dedicated to the interests of persons of Tamil descent. Brief for Petitioners in No. 09-89, pp. ii, 10 (hereinafter Brief for Plaintiffs); App. 48. In 1998, plaintiffs filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the material-support statute, § 2339B. Plaintiffs claimed that they wished to provide support for the humanitarian and political activities of the PKK and LTTE in the form of monetary contributions, other tangible aid, legal training, and political advocacy, but that they could not do so for fear of prosecution under §2339B. 9 F. Supp. 2d, at 1180-1184.
As relevant here, plaintiffs claimed that the material-support statute was unconstitutional on two grounds: First, it violated their freedom of speech and freedom of association under the First Amendment, because it criminalized their provision of material support to the PKK and LTTE, without requiring the Government to prove that plaintiffs had a specific intent to further the unlawful ends of those organizations. Id., at 1184. Second, plaintiffs argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. Id., at 1184-1185.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, which the District Court granted in part. The District Court held that plaintiffs had not established a probability of success on their First Amendment speech and association claims. See id., at 1196-1197. But the court held that plaintiffs had established a probability of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the statutory terms “personnel” and “training” in the definition of “material support” were impermissibly vague. See id., at 1204.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 205 F. 3d 1130, 1138 (CA9 2000). The court rejected plaintiffs’ speech and association claims, including their claim that § 2339B violated the First Amendment in barring them from contributing money to the PKK and LTTE. See id., at 1133-1136. But the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that the terms “personnel” and “training” were vague because it was “easy to imagine protected expression that falls within the bounds” of those terms. Id., at 1138; see id., at 1137.
With the preliminary injunction issue decided, the action returned to the District Court, and the parties moved for summary judgment on the merits. The District Court entered a permanent injunction against applying to plaintiffs the bans on “personnel” and “training” support. See No. CV-98-1971 ABC (BQRx), 2001 WL 36105333 (CD Cal., Oct. 2, 2001). The Court of Appeals affirmed. 352 F. 3d 382 (CA9 2003).
Meanwhile, in 2001, Congress amended the definition of “material support or resources” to add the term “expert advice or assistance.” Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT), § 805(a)(2)(B), 115 Stat. 377. In 2003, plaintiffs filed a second action challenging the constitutionality of that term as applied to them. 309 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1192 (CD Cal. 2004).
In that action, the Government argued that plaintiffs lacked standing and that their preenforcement claims were not ripe. Id., at 1194. The District Court held that plaintiffs’ claims were justiciable because plaintiffs had sufficiently demonstrated a “genuine threat of imminent prosecution,” id., at 1195 (internal quotation marks omitted), and because § 2339B had the potential to chill plaintiffs’ protected expression, see id., at 1197-1198. On the merits, the District Court held that the term “expert advice or assistance” was impermissibly vague. Id., at 1201. The District Court rejected, however, plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims that the new term was substantially overbroad and criminalized associational speech. See id., at 1202, 1203.
The parties cross-appealed. While the cross-appeals were pending, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc rehearing of the panel’s 2003 decision in plaintiffs’ first action (involving the terms “personnel” and “training”). See 382 F. 3d 1154, 1155 (2004). The en banc court heard reargument on December 14, 2004. See 380 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1138 (CD Cal. 2005). Three days later, Congress again amended §2339B and the definition of “material support or resources.” Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), §6603, 118 Stat. 3762-3764.
In IRTPA, Congress clarified the mental state necessary to violate § 2339B, requiring knowledge of the foreign group’s designation as a terrorist organization or the group’s commission of terrorist acts. §2339B(a)(l). Congress also added the term “service” to the definition of “material support or resources,” § 2339A(b)(l), and defined “training” to mean “instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge,” § 2339A(b)(2). It also defined “expert advice or assistance” to mean “advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.” § 2339A(b)(3). Finally, IRTPA clarified the scope of the term “personnel” by providing:
“No person may be prosecuted under [§2339B] in connection with the term ‘personnel’ unless that person has knowingly provided, attempted to provide, or conspired to provide a foreign terrorist organization with 1 or more individuals (who may be or include himself) to work under that terrorist organization’s direction or control or to organize, manage, supervise, or otherwise direct the operation of that organization. Individuals who act entirely independently of the foreign terrorist organization to advance its goals or objectives shall not be considered to be working under the foreign terrorist organization’s direction and control.” §2339B(h).
Shortly after Congress enacted IRTPA, the en banc Court of Appeals issued an order in plaintiffs’ first action. 393 F. 3d 902, 903 (CA9 2004). The en banc court affirmed the rejection of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims for the reasons set out in the Ninth Circuit’s panel decision in 2000. See ibid. In light of IRTPA, however, the en banc court vacated the panel’s 2003 judgment with respect to vagueness, and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. Ibid. The Ninth Circuit panel assigned to the cross-appeals in plaintiffs’ second action (relating to “expert advice or assistance”) also remanded in light of IRTPA. See 380 F. Supp. 2d, at 1139.
The District Court consolidated the two actions on remand. See ibid. The court also allowed plaintiffs to challenge the new term “service.” See id., at 1151, n. 24. The parties moved for summary judgment, and the District Court granted partial relief to plaintiffs on vagueness grounds. See id., at 1156.
The Court of Appeals affirmed once more. 552 F. 3d 916, 933 (CA9 2009). The court first rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the material-support statute would violate due process unless it were read to require a specific intent to further the illegal ends of a foreign terrorist organization. See id., at 926-927. The Ninth Circuit also held that the statute was not overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. See id., at 931-932. As for vagueness, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiffs had not raised a “facial vagueness challenge.” Id., at 929, n. 6. The court held that, as applied to plaintiffs, the terms “training,” “expert advice or assistance” (when derived from “other specialized knowledge”), and “service” were vague because they “continue [d] to cover constitutionally protected advocacy,” but the term “personnel” was not vague because it “no longer criminalize[d] pure speech protected by the First Amendment.” Id., at 929-931.
The Government petitioned for certiorari, and plaintiffs filed a conditional cross-petition. We granted both petitions. 557 U. S. 966 (2009).
II
Given the complicated 12-year history of this litigation, we pause to clarify the questions before us. Plaintiffs challenge § 2339B’s prohibition on four types of material support— “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel.” They raise three constitutional claims. First, plaintiffs claim that § 2339B violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because these four statutory terms are impermissibly vague. Second, plaintiffs claim that §2339B violates their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Third, plaintiffs claim that §2339B violates their First Amendment freedom of association.
Plaintiffs do not challenge the above statutory terms in all their applications. Rather, plaintiffs claim that §2339B is invalid to the extent it prohibits them from engaging in certain specified activities. See Brief for Plaintiffs 16-17, n. 10. With respect to the HLP and Judge Fertig, those activities are: (1) “train[ing] members of [the] PKK on how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes”; (2) “engaging] in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds who live in Turkey”; and (3) “teach[ing] PKK members how to petition various representative bodies such as the United Nations for relief.” 552 F. 3d, at 921, n. 1; see 380 F. Supp. 2d, at 1136. With respect to the other plaintiffs, those activities are: (1) “train[ing] members of [the] LTTE to present claims for tsunami-related aid to mediators and international bodies”; (2) “offering] their legal expertise in negotiating peace agreements between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government”; and (3) “engag[ing] in political advocacy on behalf of Tamils who live in Sri Lanka.” 552 F. 3d, at 921, n. 1; see 380 F. Supp. 2d, at 1137.
Plaintiffs also state that “the LTTE was recently defeated militarily in Sri Lanka,” so “[m]uch of the support the Tamil organizations and Dr. Jeyalingam sought to provide is now moot.” Brief for Plaintiffs 11, n. 5. Plaintiffs thus seek only to support the LTTE “as a political organization outside Sri Lanka advocating for the rights of Tamils.” Ibid. Counsel for plaintiffs specifically stated at oral argument that plaintiffs no longer seek to teach the LTTE how to present claims for tsunami-related aid, because the LTTE now “has no role in Sri Lanka.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 63. For that reason, helping the LTTE negotiate a peace agreement with Sri Lanka appears to be moot as well. Thus, we do not consider the application of § 2339B to those activities here.
One last point. Plaintiffs seek preenforcement review of a criminal statute. Before addressing the merits, we must be sure that this is a justiciable case or controversy under Article III. We conclude that it is: Plaintiffs face “a credible threat of prosecution” and “should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.” Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 298 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U. S. 118, 128-129 (2007).
Plaintiffs claim that they provided support to the PKK and LTTE before the enactment of § 2339B and that they would provide similar support again if the statute’s allegedly unconstitutional bar were lifted. See 309 F. Supp. 2d, at 1197. The Government tells us that it has charged about 150 persons with violating § 2339B, and that several of those prosecutions involved the enforcement of the statutory terms at issue here. See Brief for Government 5. The Government has not argued to this Court that plaintiffs will not be prosecuted if they do what they say they wish to do. Cf. Tr. of Oral Arg. 57-58. See Babbitt, supra, at 302. See also Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States, 559 U. S. 229, 234, 248-249 (2010) (considering an as-applied preenforcement challenge brought under the First Amendment). Based on these considerations, we conclude that plaintiffs’ claims are suitable for judicial review (as one might hope after 12 years of litigation).
Ill
Plaintiffs claim, as a threshold matter, that we should affirm the Court of Appeals without reaching any issues of constitutional law. They contend that we should interpret the material-support statute, when applied to speech, to require proof that a defendant intended to further a foreign terrorist organization’s illegal activities. That interpretation, they say, would end the litigation because plaintiffs’ proposed activities consist of speech, but plaintiffs do not intend to further unlawful conduct by the PKK or LTTE.
We reject plaintiffs’ interpretation of §2339B because it is inconsistent with the text of the statute. Section 2339B(a)(l) prohibits “knowingly” providing material support. It then specifically describes the type of knowledge that is required: “To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization..., that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity..., or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism....” Ibid. Congress plainly spoke to the necessary mental state for a violation of § 2339B, and it chose knowledge about the organization’s connection to terrorism, not specific intent to further the organization’s terrorist activities.
Plaintiffs’ interpretation is also untenable in light of the sections immediately surrounding § 2339B, both of which do refer to intent to further terrorist activity. See § 2339A(a) (establishing criminal penalties for one who “provides material support or resources... knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of” statutes prohibiting violent terrorist acts); § 23390(a)(1) (setting criminal penalties for one who “unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds with the intention that such funds be used, or with the knowledge that such funds are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out” other unlawful acts). Congress enacted §2339A in 1994 and §2339C in 2002. See § 120005(a), 108 Stat. 2022 (§ 2339A); § 202(a), 116 Stat. 724 (§ 2339C). Yet Congress did not import the intent language of those provisions into §2339B, either when it enacted §2339B in 1996, or when it clarified § 2339B’s knowledge requirement in 2004.
Finally, plaintiffs give the- game away when they argue that a specific intent requirement should apply only when the material-support statute applies to speech. There is no basis whatever in the text of § 2339B to read the same provisions in that statute as requiring intent in some circumstances but not others. It is therefore clear that plaintiffs are asking us not to interpret § 2339B, but to revise it. “Although this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute.” Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203, 211 (1961).
Scales is the case on which plaintiffs most heavily rely, but it is readily distinguishable. That case involved the Smith Act, which prohibited membership in a group advocating the violent overthrow of the government. The Court held that a person could not be convicted under the statute unless he had knowledge of the group’s illegal advocacy and a specific intent to bring about violent overthrow. Id., at 220-222, 229. This action is different: Section 2339B does not criminalize mere membership in a designated foreign terrorist organization. It instead prohibits providing “material support” to such a group. See infra, at 26, 39. Nothing about Scales suggests the need for a specific intent requirement in such a case. The Court in Scales, moreover, relied on both statutory text and precedent that had interpreted closely related provisions of the Smith Act to require specific intent. 367 U. S., at 209, 221-222. Plaintiffs point to nothing similar here.
We cannot avoid the constitutional issues in this litigation through plaintiffs’ proposed interpretation of § 2339B.
IV
We turn to the question whether the material-support statute, as applied to plaintiffs, is impermissibly vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. “A conviction fails to comport with due process if the statute under which it is obtained fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standard-less that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.” United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 304 (2008). We consider whether a statute is vague as applied to the particular facts at issue, for “[a] plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.” Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U. S. 489, 495 (1982). We have said that when a statute “interferes with the right of free speech or of association, a more stringent vagueness test should apply.” Id., at 499. “But 'perfect clarity and precise guidance have never been required even of regulations that restrict expressive activity.’” Williams, supra, at 304 (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 794 (1989)).
The Court of Appeals did not adhere to these principles. Instead, the lower court merged plaintiffs’ vagueness challenge with their First Amendment claims, holding that portions of the material-support statute were unconstitutionally vague because they applied to protected speech — regardless of whether those applications were clear. The court stated that, even if persons of ordinary intelligence understood the scope of the term “training,” that term would “remai[n] impermissibly vague” because it could “be read to encompass speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment.” 552 F. 3d, at 929. It also found “service” and a portion of “expert advice or assistance” to be vague because those terms covered protected speech. Id., at 929-930.
Further, in spite of its own statement that it was not addressing a “facial vagueness challenge,” id., at 929, n. 6, the Court of Appeals considered the statute’s application to facts not before it. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit relied on the Government’s statement that §2339B would bar filing an amicus brief in support of a foreign terrorist organization— which plaintiffs have not told us they wish to do, and which the Ninth Circuit did not say plaintiffs wished to do — to conclude that the statute barred protected advocacy and was therefore vague. See id., at 930. By deciding how the statute applied in hypothetical circumstances, the Court of Appeals’ discussion of vagueness seemed to incorporate elements of First Amendment overbreadth doctrine. See id., at 929-930 (finding it “easy to imagine” protected expression that would be barred by §2339B (internal quotation marks omitted)); id., at 930 (referring to both vagueness and overbreadth).
In both of these respects, the Court of Appeals contravened the rule that “[a] plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.” Hoffman Estates, supra, at 495. That rule makes no exception for conduct in the form of speech. See Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 755-757 (1974). Thus, even to the extent a heightened vagueness standard applies, a plaintiff whose speech is clearly proscribed cannot raise a successful vagueness claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment for lack of notice. And he certainly cannot do so based on the speech of others. Such a plaintiff may have a valid overbreadth claim under the First Amendment, but our precedents make clear that a Fifth Amendment vagueness challenge does not turn on whether a law applies to a substantial amount of protected expression. See Williams, supra, at 304; Hoffman Estates, supra, at 494-495, 497. Otherwise the doctrines would be substantially redundant.
Under a proper analysis, plaintiffs’ claims of vagueness lack merit. Plaintiffs do not argue that the material-support statute grants too much enforcement discretion to the Government. We therefore address only whether the statute “provide[s] a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited.” Williams, 553 U. S., at 304.
As a general matter, the statutory terms at issue here are quite different from the sorts of terms that we have previously declared to be vague. We have in the past “struck down statutes that tied criminal culpability to whether the defendant’s conduct was ‘annoying’ or ‘indecent’ — wholly subjective judgments without statutory definitions, narrowing context, or settled legal meanings.” Id., at 306; see also Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, n. 1 (1972) (holding vague an ordinance that punished “vagrants,” defined to include “[r]ogues and vagabonds,” “persons who use juggling,” and “common night walkers” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Applying the statutory terms in this action — “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel” — does not require similarly untethered, subjective judgments.
Congress also took care to add narrowing definitions to the material-support statute over time. These definitions increased the clarity of the statute’s terms. See § 2339A(b)(2) (“ ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge”); §2339A(b)(3) (“‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge”); §2339B(h) (clarifying the scope of “personnel”). And the knowledge requirement of the statute further reduces any potential for vagueness, as we have held with respect to other statutes containing a similar requirement. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703, 732 (2000); Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U. S. 513, 523, 526 (1994); see also Hoffman Estates, supra, at 499.
Of course, the scope of the material-support statute may not be clear in every application. But the dispositive point here is that the statutory terms are clear in their application to plaintiffs’ proposed conduct, which means that plaintiffs’ vagueness challenge must fail. Even assuming that a heightened standard applies because the material-support statute potentially implicates speech, the statutory terms are not vague as applied to plaintiffs. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104,114-115 (1972) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to a criminal law that implicated First Amendment activities); Scales, 367 U. S., at 223 (same).
Most of the activities in which plaintiffs seek to engage readily fall within the scope of the terms “training” and “expert advice or assistance.” Plaintiffs want to “train members of [the] PKK on how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes,” and “teach PKK members how to petition various representative bodies such as the United Nations for relief.” 552 F. 3d, at 921, n. 1. A person of ordinary intelligence would understand that instruction on resolving disputes through international law falls within the statute’s definition of “training” because it imparts a “specific skill,” not “general knowledge.” §2339A(b)(2). Plaintiffs’ activities also fall comfortably within the scope of “expert advice or assistance”: A reasonable person would recognize that teaching the PKK how to petition for humanitarian relief before the United Nations involves advice derived from, as the statute puts it, “specialized knowledge.” § 2339A(b)(3). In fact, plaintiffs themselves have repeatedly used the terms “training” and “expert advice” throughout this litigation to describe their own proposed activities, demonstrating that these common terms readily and naturally cover plaintiffs’ conduct. See, e. g., Brief for Plaintiffs 10, 11; App. 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 80, 81, 98, 99, 106, 107, 117.
Plaintiffs respond by pointing to hypothetical situations designed to test the limits of “training” and “expert advice or assistance.” They argue that the statutory definitions of these terms use words of degree — like “specific,” “general,” and “specialized” — and that it is difficult to apply those definitions in particular cases. See Brief for Plaintiffs 27 (debating whether teaching a course on geography would constitute training); id., at 29. And they cite Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U. S. 1030 (1991), in which we found vague a state bar rule providing that a lawyer in a criminal case, when speaking to the press, “may state without elaboration... the general nature of the... defense.” Id., at 1048 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Whatever force these arguments might have in the abstract, they are beside the point here. Plaintiffs do not propose to teach a course on geography, and cannot seek refuge in imaginary cases that straddle the boundary between “specific skills” and “general knowledge.” See Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S., at 756. We emphasized this point in Scales, holding that even if there might be theoretical doubts regarding the distinction between “active” and “nominal” membership in an organization — also terms of degree — the defendant’s vagueness challenge failed because his “case presented] no such problem.” 367 U. S., at 223.
Gentile was different. There the asserted vagueness in a state bar rule was directly implicated by the facts before the Court: Counsel had reason to suppose that his particular statements to the press would not violate the rule, yet he was disciplined nonetheless. See 501 U. S., at 1049-1051. We did not suggest that counsel could escape discipline on vagueness grounds if his own speech were plainly prohibited.
Plaintiffs also contend that they want to engage in “political advocacy” on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka. 552 F. 3d, at 921, n. 1. They are concerned that such advocacy might be regarded as “material support” in the form of providing “personnel” or “service[s],” and assert that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because they cannot tell.
As for “personnel,” Congress enacted a limiting definition in IRTPA that answers plaintiffs’ vagueness concerns. Providing material support that constitutes “personnel” is defined as knowingly providing a person “to work under that terrorist organization’s direction or control or to organize, manage, supervise, or otherwise direct the operation of that organization.” §2339B(h). The statute makes clear that “personnel” does not cover independent advocacy: “Individuals who act entirely independently of the foreign terrorist organization to advance its goals or objectives shall not be considered to be working under the foreign terrorist organization’s direction and control.” Ibid.
“[Sjervice” similarly refers to concerted activity, not independent advocacy. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2075 (1993) (defining “service” to mean “the performance of work commanded or paid for by another: a servant’s duty: attendance on a superior”; or “an act done for the benefit or at the command of another”). Context confirms that ordinary meaning here. The statute prohibits providing a service “to a foreign terrorist organization.” §2339B(a)(l) (emphasis added). The use of the word “to” indicates a connection between the service and the foreign group. We think a person of ordinary intelligence would understand that independently advocating for a cause is different from providing a service to a group that is advocating for that cause.
Moreover, if independent activity in support of a terrorist group could be characterized as a “service,” the statute’s specific exclusion of independent activity in the definition of “personnel” would not make sense. Congress would not have prohibited under “service” what it specifically exempted from prohibition under “personnel.” The other types of material support listed in the statute, including “lodging,” “weapons,” “explosives,” and “transportation,” § 2339A(b)(l), are not forms of support that could be provided independently of a foreign terrorist organization. We interpret “service” along the same lines. Thus, any independent advocacy in which plaintiffs wish to engage is not prohibited by § 2339B. On the other hand, a person of ordinary intelligence would understand the term “service” to cover advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization.
Plaintiffs argue that this construction of the statute poses difficult questions of exactly how much direction or coordination is necessary for an activity to constitute a “service.” See Reply Brief for Petitioners in No. 09-89, p. 14 (hereinafter Reply Brief for Plaintiffs) (“Would any communication with any member be sufficient? With a leader? Must the ‘relationship’ have any formal elements, such as an employment or contractual relationship? What about a relationship through an intermediary?”). The problem with these questions is that they are entirely hypothetical. Plaintiffs have not provided any specific articulation of the degree to which they seek to coordinate their advocacy with the PKK and LTTE. They have instead described the form of their intended advocacy only in the most general terms. See, e. g., Brief for Plaintiffs 10-11 (plaintiffs “would like, among other things, to offer their services to advocate on behalf of the rights of the Kurdish people and the PKK before the United
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In 1981, petitioner filed a civil rights action against respondents. Respondents moved to dismiss, and the District Court dismissed the action in its entirety. Petitioner filed, and then abandoned, an appeal. Respondents then moved in the District Court for an award of attorney’s fees on the ground that petitioner had filed his action in bad faith. The court granted the motion and awarded respondents fees amounting to some $19,000. Petitioner filed a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment, as authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The District Court held a hearing on the motion and denied it from the bench. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal that same afternoon. Not until two days later, however, was the order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment entered on the docket. Petitioner did not file a new notice of appeal following the docket entry.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed petitioner’s appeal, ruling that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed. 776 F. 2d 1046 (1985). The Court of Appeals relied on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), which, in pertinent part, provides:
“If a timely motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is filed in the district court by any party . . . under Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment . . . the time for appeal for all parties shall run from the entry of the order . . . granting or denying any . . . such motion. A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of any of the above motions shall have no effect. A new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion as provided above.”
The court concluded that because petitioner filed his notice of appeal before the order disposing of the Rule 59 motion, Rule 4(a)(4) required it to treat the notice as a “nullity” and thus deprived the court of jurisdiction over the appeal.
The Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of Rule 4(a)(4) is directly contrary to that adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Calhoun v. United States, 647 F. 2d 6 (1981). There, the court held that the Rule’s command that “[a] notice of appeal filed before the disposition of [a Rule 59 motion] shall have no effect,” did not render a notice of appeal filed after the announcement of the decision on the motion but before the entry of the order a nullity. Rather, the court concluded that the term “disposition” as used in the rule was synonymous with “announcement”; accordingly, a notice of appeal could be given effect as long as it was filed after the trial court’s announcement of its ruling. The Ninth Circuit concluded that this interpretation of the Rule was justified by “the policy of ‘exercising all proper means to prevent the loss of valuable rights when the validity of an appeal is challenged not because something was done too late, but rather because it was done too soon.’” Id., at 10 (quoting Williams v. Town of Okoboji, 599 F. 2d 238, 239-240 (CA8 1979)). The court reasoned that if a notice filed before entry of the order were deemed defective, “valuable rights [might] be lost because an important, but ministerial, act was not performed when expected.” 647 F. 2d, at 11.
Because such a direct conflict over the interpretation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure calls for resolution in this Court, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. Finding that the issue is not one that requires plenary consideration, we now affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Unlike the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Calhoun, the decision below comports with the plain wording of the Rules. Rule 4(a)(4) specifically states that a notice of appeal, to be effective, must be “filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion as provided above.” Further, Rule 4(a)(2) provides that, “[ejxcept as provided in (a)(k) of this Rule U, a notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision or order but before the entry of the judgment or order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof” (emphasis added). The plain import of this language is that with respect to the particular motions to which it applies, Rule 4(a)(4) constitutes an exception to the general rule that a notice of appeal filed after announcement of an order but before its entry in the docket will be deemed timely filed. The Ninth Circuit’s Calhoun rule essentially reads the first clause of subdivision (a)(2) out of Rule 4 by holding that Rule 4(a)(4) does not constitute such an exception. But if subdivision (a)(2) is taken seriously, it is untenable to read subdivision (a)(4) except as the Fifth Circuit has read it in this case: that is, as establishing the rule that a notice of appeal is ineffective unless filed after entry of judgment on a Rule 59 motion or any of the other motions to which the subdivision applies.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
Justice Brennan would grant the petition for certiorari and set the case for oral argument.
Accordingly, respondents’ motion for an award of damages on the ground that the petition is frivolous 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:
|
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 Reed
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Clark join.
Petitioner, Agapita Gallegos, was convicted in a District Court of Nebraska of manslaughter and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, the maximum penalty. The charge was the slaying of his paramour without deliberation or premeditation. This judgment of conviction was sustained by the Supreme Court of Nebraska over the objection that introduction at the trial of petitioner’s prior statements admitting the homicide violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In view of certain undenied incidents giving color to petitioner’s allegation of unfairness in the prosecution, certiorari was granted to determine whether the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by the admission of the statements. 341 U. S. 947.
On 'September 19, 1949, at the request of the United. States Immigration and Naturalization Service, petitioner, a thirty-eight-year-old Mexican farm hand who can neither speak nor write English, was arrested, together with his brother, by police officers of El Paso County, at the southwest corner of Texas, and there booked on a charge of vagrancy. Gallegos had been an itinerant farm worker in this country before his arrest and had recently returned here for such work.
'We gather from the abbreviated record that information was sought by'’the Texas authorities as to petitioner’s acts in Nebraska, where he had worked, the preceding year. After arrest, petitioner was questioned regarding his identity. He at once gave a false name. Thereafter, he was jailed in a small room for the next twenty-one hours. Further questioning to establish identity was had on September 20, 1949, without result. Folio? ng his second interrogation, petitioner was left alone for forty-eight hours. On September 22, 1949, petitioner was removed from his cell and interrogated. After he gave his name and an admission that he had been in Nebraska, he was reconfined; this time confinement ran for a period of twenty-four hours.
On September 23, 1949, petitioner disclosed details of this Nebraska crime. A statement in respect of the crime was immediately prepared in English. This was read to the petitioner in Spanish, and he thereafter signed it. His Texas detention continued until September 27, 1949. During the entire time no charge was filed against him in any state or federal court nor was he brqught before a magistrate.
We have Gallegos’ evidence as to his Texas confinement, the rooms he was placed in, their condition as to furnishings, and the food provided. His testimony on these points is met only in part by the testimony of the Chief Deputy Sheriff of El Paso, his interrogator.' There were times when Gallegos was not under his direct observation. Nebraska had no other witness for the trial familiar with conditions of the Texas restraint. Gallegos’ testimony through the interpreter concerning these matters is vague. From it one gathers that Gallegos sought to convey the impression that the rooms were cells, that the one he occupied for twenty-one hours was without a bed, that one he occupied was without light or poorly lighted, and that the food was sparse, perhaps not more than a meal a day.
During the questioning in the four-day period from September 19th through the 23d, the state says petitioner was not treated or threatened with violence. His questioning did not last longer than an hour or two on any day and according to the record was conducted almost entirely by the state's witness, the Chief Deputy Sheriff. However, Gallegos testifies that he was told that he might be turned over to the Mexican authorities for more severe questioning and that a lie detector might be used upon him. The record shows no flat denial of Gallegos’ assertions contained in the last sentence, but it does show, by testimony of the Deputy Sheriff, that no threats or promises were made and that reference to the Mexican authorities, if made, .was that Gallegos would be turned over to the United States Immigration Service who, in turn, would deliver him to the Mexican Immigration Service. Gallegos also spoke of threatened violence.
On September 27, 1949, a Nebraska sheriff reached Texas and took petitioner to the Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska, jail, arriving Thursday, September 29, at 1 a. m. Gallegos was questioned on Saturday, October 1, at which time he was interviewed through an interpreter by three county police officers. He described the crime for which he was convicted. A transcript in English of the interpreter’s translations of the interview was made and some days later read back to petitioner in a Spanish retranslation. The evidence is that Gallegos confirmed this record. The record shows no claim of mistreatment by Nebraska authorities.
By § 29-406, Neb. Rev. Stat., 1943, a police officer is commanded to take an accused before a magistrate. This was not done until October 13, 1949, when petitioner was brought before the county judge of Scotts Bluff County for a preliminary hearing on. a complaint charging murder in the second degree. This was the first time petitioner was brought before any magistrate or court. As an incident to the hearing, petitioner was asked to plead. He pleaded guilty. These two confessions and the plea weré introduced at petitioner’s trial by the state. On October 15, 1949, before trial, the District Court of Scotts Bluff County found petitioner to be entitled to counsel appointed by the court, and counsel was then for the first time appointed.
Petitioner presents in his brief only the following question: ■
“Are confessions and a plea obtained from a prisoner during a period of twenty-five days illegal detention by federal and state officers before being brought before a magistrate and before counsel is appointed to assist the prisoner admissible in evidence?”
An answer requires an examination into the. circumstances of record surrounding the statements.
Before the Supreme Court of Nebraska, on the basis of facts in the record of the trial, it was urged that the confessions and plea were inadmissible because they were the result of. “physical torture and threats of torture, mental duress, illegal transportation and illegal detention,” in violation of the federal and state constitutions. As conviction without acceptance of the voluntary character of the confessions would logically have been impossible, we assume that the jury, under applicable instructions, found the statements voluntary. 152 Neb. 831, 837-840, 43 N. W. 2d 1, 4-6. Evidently, neither judge nor jury accepted the testimony of Gallegos on disputed facts as to coercion. Where direct contradiction of petitioner’s assertions as to conditions of his detention in Texas was unavailable or unobtainable, the jury disregarded or minimized or disbelieved Gallegos to such an extent that his confessions were accepted as voluntary. The Deputy Sheriff, the prosecution witness in the best position to know, denied any coercion by promise, threat or violence. A criminal prosecution approved by the state should not be set aside as violative of due process without clear proof that such drastic action is required to protect federal constitutional rights. While our conclusion on due process does not necessarily follow the ultimate determinations of judges or juries as to the voluntary character of a defendant’s statements prior to trial, the better opportunity af7 forded those state agencies to appraise the weight of the evidence, because the witnesses gave it personally before them, leads us to accept their judgment insofar as facts upon which conclusions must be reached are in dispute. The state’s ultimate conclusion on guilt is examined from the due process standpoint in the light of facts undisputed by the state. That means not only admitted facts but also those that can be classified from the record as without substantial challenge.
As this Court has been entrusted with power to interpret and apply our Constitution to the protection of the right of an accused to federal due process in state criminal trials, the proper performance of that duty requires us to examine, in cases before us, such undisputed facts as form the basis of a state court’s denial of that right. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Albers Comm’n Co., 223 U. S. 573, 591; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 594; Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 51. A contrary rule would deny to the Federal Government ultimate authority to"" redress a violation of constitutional rights. As state courts also are charged with applying constitutional standards of due process, in recognition of their superior opportunity to appraise conflicting testimony, we give deference to their conclusions on disputed and essential issues of what actually happened. See note 2, infra Its duty compels this Court, however, to decide for itself, on the facts that are undisputed, the constitutional validity of a judgment that denies claimed constitutional rights.
Controversies as to facts take various forms. The jury-may reach a verdict of guilty although they resolved some subsidiary fact in favor of the accused. In Gallegos’ case we do not know whether his assertions not directly contradicted as to questionable conditions of his Texas detention and examination were accepted as true by the jury. It is quite possible that the jury thought the confession voluntary even though it believed all of Gallegos’ testimony. As we cannot accept the verdict as a finding solely on disputed facts, we must weigh Gallegos’ uncontradicted testimony along with the undisputed facts. We are not free, as Nebraska was, tb leave to the jury determinations of facts upon which the admissibility of the statements is based.
The issue of federal due process now tendered is to be considered only on uncontroverted facts. . The answer to the question presented depends upon whether there is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from the admitted circumstances that the two confessions of September 23 and October 1 were given to police officers after arrest in Texas on September 19,1949, while no magistrate with supervisory power over the examinations was present and while the accused was without counsel. Circumstances surrounding the Texas, as well as the Nebraska, confession must be appraised because Nebraska introduced the Texas confession in evidence in the trial. The use of any confession obtained in violation of due process requires the reversal of a conviction even though unchallenged evidence, adequate to convict, remains. Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 404. Both states require fugitives from justice to be promptly taken before a magistrate on arrest for extradition. Texas, Vernon’s Code of Criminal Procedure, Arts. 998, 999, 217. Neb. Rev. Stat., 1943, §§ 29-713, 29-715. The question must be weighed in the light of the uncontradicted portion of Gallegos’ own testimony of harsh treatment and the answers of the prosecution and the judge and the jury. The plea of guilty at the preliminary hearing on October 13 is also a factor. We therefore limit our examination to an inquiry as to whether use at trial of these admissions of guilt theretofore made by an accused violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision and judgment below determine for us that under the law of Nebraska such detention and examination, without appearance or arraignment, do not require exclusion of the confessions or plea as involuntary. The rule of the McNabb case,, considered recently in United States v. Carignan, 342 U. S. 36, is not a limitation imposed by the Due Process Clause. McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 340; Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U. S. 596, 597, note 2. Compliance with the McNabb rule is required in federal courts by this Court through its power of supervision over the procedure and practices of federal courts in the trial of criminal cases. That power over state criminal trials is not vested in this Court. A confession can be declared inadmissible in a state criminal trial by this Court only when the circumstances under which it is received violate those “fundamental principles of liberty and justice” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against infraction by any state.
The Federal Constitution does not command a state to furnish defendants counsel as a matter of course, as is required by the Sixth Amendment in federal prosecutions. Lack of counsel at state noncapital trials denies federal constitutional protection only when the absence results in a denial to accused of the essentials of justice. Lack of counsel prior to trial certainly has no greater effect. Lyons v. Oklahoma, supra, p. 599. “The mere fact that a confession was made while in the custody of the police does not render it-inadmissible.” McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 346; cf. United States v. Carignan, 342 U. S. 36, 39.
Prolonged detention without a charge of crime or without preliminary appearance before a magistrate, the lack of counsel before, during, or after arraignment,- and confession to the police in private, are, however, elements that should be considered in determining whether a confession, permitted to be introduced and relied upon at a trial, has been obtained under such circumstances that its use violates due process. Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 54. Of course, the plea of guilty at the preliminary hearing should be treated in the same way as the confessions.
So far as due process affects admissions before trial of the defendant, the accepted test is their voluntariness. This requires appraisal, of the facts of each particular case open to consideration by this Court. In recent cases, where undisputed facts existed far more likely to produce involuntary confessions than those in this case, there was disagreement as to whether due process was violated. The facts here to support a claim of denial of due process are not so convincing.
Certiorari was granted in this case because the record disclosed a serious charge under the Due Process Clause against Nebraska procedure in a criminal case. We have carefully weighed the circumstances of the petitioner’s lack of education and familiarity with our law, his experience and condition in life, his need for advice of counsel as to the law of homicide and the probable effect on such a man of interrogation during confinement. We have also taken into consideration Gallegos’ uncontradicted testimony about his accommodations, his limited amounts of food and certain threats made by a Texas assistant sheriff not present at the trial. The uncertain character of this uncontradicted testimony, its lack of definiteness; and the action of the trial judge and jury lead us to place little weight upon it. Our position is confirmed by Gallegos’ reiteration of his confession while in custody in Nebraska, when he charges no coercion except detention. See Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U. S. 596, 603.
We cannot say that Nebraska has here violated standards of decency or justice in this conviction.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“Q. At any time when anybody was talking to you at the jail in El Paso, Texas, did they act like they were trying to scare you?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Tell us when that was?
“A, When they started to investigate me.
“Q. Was that the first day you were in jail or the second day or the third day?
“A. The first day.
“Q. Tell us what happened.
“A. They tried to get words out of my forcibly by another sheriff that is there.
“Q. Do you know who that other sheriff was?
“A. I don’t know what his name is.
“Q. Have you seen him here in this court room?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. What did he do?
“A.'He would not take his eyes away ffom me and he seemed like he wanted to hit me and I was frightened and I didn’t know what to do.” [R. 84-85.]
“Q. But you say no one struck you?
“A. No.
“Q. And no one ever raised their arm as if they were going to strike you?
“A. The other fellow.
“Q. What other fellow?
“A. The other one that investigated me.'
“Q. Where did he do that?
“A. In one room that he had there where he was investigating me.
‘‘Q.'How did he threaten to strike you?
“A. With his hand. .
“Q. Did he strike you at that time?
“A. He just raised his hand.
“Q. Did he say he was going to strike you?
“A. He said he was going to hit me because I would not. tell him the truth.
“Q. But he still did not hit you?
“A. No, he did not hit me.” [R. 90-91.]
Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U. S. 596, 603; Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 404; Haley v. Ohio, 332 U. S. 596, 599; Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 51. Cf. Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 238-241.
152 Neb. 839, 43 N. W. 2d 5:
“While there is testimony given by the defendant from which the jury could have found that the confessions made were involuntary due to the manner in which defendant was held in confinement, the treatment received while so held, and the threats made; however, the testimony of the authorities in charge, both at El Paso and Scottsbluff, deny these facts and when their testimony is taken together with certain testimony of the defendant, it presents a factual situation from which the jury could properly find that the confessions were freely and voluntarily made. This includes the issue presented by the evidence offered as to whether or not the complaint was properly translated at the preliminary hearing so it was understood by the defendant in making his plea thereto. It also includes the question of whether or not he understood the nature or degree of the crime with which he was charged. These issues both relate themselves directly to the question of whether or not he understood what he was doing when he made his admission of guilt and consequently relate directly to whether it was voluntarily or involuntarily made.”
Gallegos v. State, 152 Neb. 831, 839-840, 43 N. W. 2d 1, 6:
“In regard to how soon after a person is arrested he must be given a preliminary hearing we said in Maher v. State, 144 Neb. 463, 13 N. W. 2d 641: ‘The question as to the time in which the defendant should be given a preliminary hearing is a question for the court. There can be no precise length of time, after the arrest of a person, in which he must be given a hearing. The theory of the law is that he must be given a hearing as soon as possible. A person charged should be given -a preliminary hearing just as soon as the nature and circumstances of the case will permit.’
“. . . Here the court, in the first instance, heard all of the evidence relating thereto and determined that sufficient foundation had been laid for their admission. The evidence was then presented to the jury and the question as to their character, whether voluntary or involuntary, was submitted to it by the court’s instructions Nos. 12, 13, and 14. We find the facts and circumstances relating to the giving of the two confessions and the admission of guilt at the preliminary hearing justified the trial court in admitting them in evidence in the first instance and submitting their character, whether voluntary or involuntary, to the jury. See Kitts v. State [151 Neb. 679, 39 N. W. 2d 283].”
Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 316; Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, 54.
Quicksall v. Michigan, 339 U. S. 660; Bute v. Illinois, 333 U. S. 640; Foster v. Illinois, 332 U. S. 134.
Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U. S. 437, 441; Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, 462; compare Hawk v. Olson, 326 U. S. 271, 278.
Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 285-286; Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 236, 238; Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 238.
Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 51, 52:
“On November 12, 1947, a Wednesday, petitioner was arrested and held as the suspected perpetrator of an alleged criminal assault earlier in the day. Later the same- day, in the vicinity of this occurrence, a woman was found dead under conditions • suggesting murder in the course of an attempted criminal assault. Suspicion of murder quickly turned towards petitioner and the police began to question him. They took him from the county jail to State Police Headquarters, where he was questioned by officers in relays from about 11:30 that night until sometime between 2:30 and 3 o’clock the following morning. The same procedure of persistent interrogation from about 5:30 in the afternoon until about 3 o’clock the following morning, by a relay of six to eight officers, was pursued on-Thursday the 13th, Friday the 14th, Saturday the 15th, Monday the 17th. Sunday was a day of rest from interrogation. About 3 o’clock on Tuesday morning, November 18, the petitioner made an incriminating statement after continuous questioning since 6 o’clock of .the preceding evening. The statement did not satisfy the prosecutor who had been called in and he then took petitioner in hand. Petitioner, questioned by an interrogator of twenty years’ experience as lawyer, judge and prosecutor, yielded a more incriminating document.
“Until his inculpatory statements were secured, the petitioner was a prisoner in the exclusive control of the prosecuting authorities. He was kept for the first two days in solitary confinement in a cell aptly enough called ‘the hole’ in view of its «physical conditions as described by the State’s witnesses. Apart from the five night sessions, the police intermittently interrogated Watts during the day and on three days drove him around town, hours at a time, with a view to eliciting identifications and other disclosures. Although the law of Indiana required that petitioner be given a prompt preliminary hearing before a magistrate, with all the protection a hearing was intended to give him, the petitioner was not only given no hearing during the entire period of interrogation but was without friendly or professional aid and without advice as to his constitutional rights. Disregard of rudimentary needs of life — opportunities for sleep and a decent allowance of food — are also relevant, not as aggravating elements of petitioner’s treatment, but as part of. the total situation out of which his confessions came and which stamped their character.”
Turner v. Pennsylvania, 338 U. S. 62, 63-64:
“The officers making the arrest had no warrant and did not tell the petitioner why he was being arrested. These officers began to question the petitioner as soon as they reached the City Hall police station: One of them examined the petitioner for three hours on that afternoon and again that night from eight to eleven o’clock. From time to time other officers joined in the interrogation. Petitioner persistently denied any knowledge of the murder.
“The next morning, June 4, the petitioner was booked on the police records as being held for questioning. Later that day he was questioned for about four hours more. On June 5 he was inter- ' rogated for another four hours and on the 6th for day and night sessions totaling six hours. The questioning was conducted sometimes by one officer and at other times by several working together; it appears, in fact, that whenever one of the police officers interested in the investigation had any free time he would have the pétitioner brought from his cell for questioning.
“On June 7, the day when a confession was finally obtained, questioning began in the afternoon and continued for three hours. Later, that day the officers who had been present during the afternoon returned with others to resume the examination of petitioner. Despite the fact that he was falsely told that other suspects had ‘opened up’on him, petitioner repeatedly denied guilt. But finally, at about eleven o’clock, petitioner stated that he had killed the person for whose murder he was later arraigned.”.
Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U. S. 68, 69-70:
“On Monday night questioning began in earnest. At least five officers worked in relays, relieving each other from time to time to permit respite from the stifling heat of the cubicle in which the interrogation was conducted. Throughout the evening petitioner denied that he had killed the Bennetts. On Tuesday the questioning continued under the same conditions from 1:30 in the afternoon until past one the following morning with only an hour’s interval at 5:30. On Wednesday afternoon the Chief of the State Constabulary, with half a dozen of his men, questioned petitioner for about an hour, and the local authorities carried ón the interrogation for three and a half hours longer. At 6:30 that evening the examination resumed. Petitioner continued to deny implication in the killings. The sheriff then threatened to arrest petitioner’s, mother for handling stolen property. Petitioner replied, ‘Don’t get my mother--mixed un in it and I will tell you the truth.’ Petitioner, then stated in substance what appears in the confession introduced at the trial. ' The session ended at midnight.
“Petitioner was not informed of his rights under South Carolina law, such as the right to secure a lawyer, the right to request a preliminary hearing, or the right to remain silent. No preliminary hearing was ever given and his confession does not even contain the usual statement that he was told that what he said might be used against him. During the whole period of interrogation he was denied the benefit of consultation with family and friends and was ' surrounded by as many as a dozen members of a dominant group in positions of authority. It is relevant to note that Harris was an illiterate.”-
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Subject to certain exceptions, the Copyright Act (Act) requires copyright holders to register their works before suing for copyright infringement. 17 U. S. C. § 411(a) (2006 ed., Supp. II). In this case, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a copyright holder’s failure to comply with §411(a)’s registration requirement deprives a federal court of jurisdiction to adjudicate his copyright infringement claim. We disagree. Section 411(a)’s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a claim that does not restrict a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
I
A
The Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to . . . their . . . Writings.” Art. I, §8, cl. 8. Exercising this power, Congress has crafted a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the existence and scope of “[cjopyright protection” for “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” 17 U. S. C. § 102(a) (2006 ed.). This scheme gives copyright owners “the exclusive rights” (with specified statutory exceptions) to distribute, reproduce, or publicly perform their works. § 106. “Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided” in the Act “is an infringer of the copyright.” § 501(a). When such infringement occurs, a copyright owner “is entitled, subject to the requirements of section Ipil, to institute an action” for copyright infringement. § 501(b) (emphasis added).
This case concerns “the requirements of section 411” to which § 501(b) refers. Section 411(a) provides, inter alia and with certain exceptions, that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim’has been made in accordance with this title.” This provision is part of the Act’s remedial scheme. It establishes a condition — copyright registration — that plaintiffs ordinarily must satisfy before filing an infringement claim and invoking the Act’s remedial provisions. We address whether § 411(a) also deprives federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate infringement claims involving unregistered works.
B
The relevant proceedings in this case began after we issued our opinion in New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U. S. 483 (2001). In Tasini, we agreed with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that several owners of online databases and print publishers had infringed the copyrights of six freelance authors by reproducing the authors’ works electronically without first securing their permission. See id., at 493. In so holding, we affirmed the principal theory of liability underlying copyright infringement suits that other freelance authors had filed after the Court of Appeals had issued its opinion in Tasini. These other suits, which were stayed pending our decision in Tasini, resumed after we issued our opinion and were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistriet Litigation.
The consolidated complaint alleged that the named plaintiffs each own at least one copyright, typically in a freelance article written for a newspaper or a magazine, that they had registered in accordance with § 411(a). The class, however, included both authors who had registered their copyrighted works and authors who had not. See App. 94.
Because of the growing size and complexity of the lawsuit, the District Court referred the parties to mediation. For more than three years, the freelance authors, the publishers (and their insurers), and the electronic databases (and their insurers) negotiated. Finally, in March 2005, they reached a settlement agreement that the parties intended “to achieve a global peace in the publishing industry.” In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation, 509 F. 3d 116, 119 (CA2 2007).
The parties moved the District Court to certify a class for settlement and to approve the settlement agreement. Ten freelance authors, including Irvin Muehnick (hereinafter Muehnick respondents), objected. The District Court overruled the objections; certified a settlement class of freelance authors under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3); approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e); and entered final judgment. At no time did the Muehnick respondents or any other party urge the District Court to dismiss the case, or to refuse to certify the class or approve the settlement, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Muehnick respondents appealed, renewing their objections to the settlement on procedural and substantive grounds. Shortly before oral argument, the Court of Appeals sua sponte ordered briefing on the question whether §411(a) deprives federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement claims involving unregistered copyrights. All parties filed briefs asserting that the District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to approve the settlement agreement even though it included unregistered works.
Relying on two Circuit precedents holding that § 411(a)’s registration requirement was jurisdictional, see 509 F. 3d, at 121 (citing Well-Made Toy Mfg. Corp. v. Goffa Int’l Corp., 354 F. 3d 112, 114-115 (CA2 2003); Morris v. Business Concepts, Inc., 259 F. 3d 65, 72-73 (CA2 2001)), the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to certify a class of claims arising from the infringement of unregistered works, and also lacked jurisdiction to approve a settlement with respect to those claims, 509 F. 3d, at 121 (citing “widespread agreement among the circuits that section 411(a) is jurisdictional”).
Judge Walker dissented. He concluded “that § 411(a) is more like the [nonjurisdictional] employee-numerosity requirement in Arbaugh [v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500 (2006),]” than the jurisdictional statutory time limit in Bowles v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205 (2007). 509 F. 3d, at 129. Accordingly, he reasoned that §411(a)’s registration requirement does not limit federal subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement suits involving unregistered works. Ibid.
We granted the owners’ and publishers’ petition for a writ of certiorari, and formulated the question presented to ask whether § 411(a) restricts the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts over copyright infringement actions. 555 U. S. 1211 (2009). Because no party supports the Court of Appeals’ jurisdictional holding, we appointed an amicus curias to defend the Court of Appeals’ judgment. 556 U. S. 1161 (2009). We now reverse.
II
A
. “Jurisdiction” refers to “a court’s adjudicatory authority.” Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443, 455 (2004). Accordingly, the term “jurisdictional” properly applies only to “prescriptions delineating the classes of cases (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the persons (personal jurisdiction)” implicating that authority. Ibid.; see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 89 (1998) (“subject-matter jurisdiction” refers to “the courts’ statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case” (emphasis in original)); Landgrafv. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 274 (1994) (“[J]urisdictional statutes 'speak to the power of the court rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties’” (quoting Republic Nat. Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U. S. 80, 100 (1992) (Thomas, J., concurring))).
While perhaps clear in theory, the distinction between jurisdictional conditions and claim-processing rules can be confusing in practice. Courts — including this Court — have sometimes miseharacterized claim-processing rules or elements of a cause of action as jurisdictional limitations, particularly when that characterization was not central to the case, and thus did not require close analysis. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 511-512 (2006) (citing examples); Steel Co., 523 U. S., at 91 (same). Our recent cases evince a marked desire to curtail such “drive-by jurisdictional rulings,” ibid., which too easily can miss the “critical difference[s]” between true jurisdictional conditions and nonjurisdietional limitations on causes of action, Kontrick, supra, at 456; see also Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 511.
In light of the important distinctions between jurisdictional prescriptions and claim-processing rules, see, e. g., id., at 514, we have encouraged federal courts and litigants to “facilitate]” clarity by using the term “jurisdictional” only when it is apposite, Kontrick, supra, at 455. In Arbaugh, we described the general approach to distinguish “jurisdictional” conditions from claim-processing requirements or elements of a claim:
“If the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional, then courts and litigants will be duly instructed and will not be left to wrestle with the issue. But when Congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character.” 546 U. S., at 515-516 (citation and footnote omitted).
The plaintiff in Arbaugh brought a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful “for an employer ... to discriminate,” inter alia, on the basis of sex. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). But employees can bring Title VII claims only against employers that have “fifteen or more employees.” § 2000e(b). Arbaugh addressed whether that employee numerosity requirement “affects federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction or, instead, delineates a substantive ingredient of a Title VII claim for relief.” 546 U. S., at 508. We held that it does the latter.
Our holding turned principally on our examination of the text of § 2000e(b), the section in which Title VII’s numerosity requirement appears. Section 20Q0e(b) does not “clearly stat[e]” that the employee numerosity threshold on Title VII’s scope “eount[s] as jurisdictional.” Id., at 515-516, and n. 11. And nothing in our prior Title VII cases compelled the conclusion that even though the numerosity requirement lacks a clear jurisdictional label, it nonetheless imposed a jurisdictional limit. See id., at 511-513. Similarly, §2Q00e(b)’s text and structure did not demonstrate that Congress “rank[ed]” that requirement as jurisdictional. See id., at 513-516. As we observed, the employee numerosity requirement is located in a provision “separate” from § 2000e-5(f)(3), Title VII’s jurisdiction-granting section, distinguishing it from the “amount-in-eontroversy threshold ingredient of subject-matter jurisdiction in . .. diversity-of-jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1332.” Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 514-515. Accordingly, the numerosity requirement could not fairly be read to “ ‘speak in jurisdictional terms or in any way refer to the jurisdiction of the district courts.’ ” Id., at 515 (quoting Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385, 394 (1982)). We thus “refrain[ed] from” construing the numerosity requirement to “constric[t] § 1331 or Title VII’s jurisdictional provision.” Arbaugh, supra, at 515 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We now apply this same approach to § 411(a).
B
Section 411(a) provides:
“Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute a civil action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights. The Register may, at his or her option, become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim by entering an appearance within sixty days after such service, but the Register’s failure to become a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine that issue.” (Footnote omitted.)
We must consider whether § 411(a) “clearly states” that its registration requirement is “jurisdictional.” Arbaugh, supra, at 515. It does not. Amicus disagrees, pointing to the presence of the word “jurisdiction” in the last sentence of § 411(a) and contending that the use of the term there indicates the jurisdictional cast of §411(a)’s first sentence as well. Brief for Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below 18 (hereinafter Amicus Brief). But this reference to “jurisdiction” cannot bear the weight that ami cus places upon it. The sentence upon which amicus relies states:
“The Register [of Copyrights] may, at his or her option, become a party to the [copyright infringement] action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim by entering an appearance within sixty days after such service, but the Register’s failure to become a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine that issue.” § 411(a) (emphasis added).
Congress added this sentence to the Act in 1976, 90 Stat. 2583, to clarify that a federal court can determine “the issue of registrability of the copyright claim” even if the Register does not appear in the infringement suit. That clarification was necessary because courts had interpreted §411(a)’s precursor provision, which imposed a similar registration requirement, as prohibiting copyright owners who had been refused registration by the Register of Copyrights from suing for infringement until the owners first sought mandamus against the Register. See Vacheron & Constantin-Le Coultre Watches, Inc. v. Benrus Watch Co., 260 F. 2d 637, 640-641 (CA2 1958) (construing §411(a)’s precursor). The 1976 amendment made it clear that a federal court plainly has adjudicatory authority to determine “that issue,” § 411(a) (emphasis added) — i e., the issue of registrability — regardless of whether the Register is a party to the infringement suit. The word “jurisdiction,” as used here, thus says nothing about whether a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for infringement of unregistered works.
Moreover, §411(a)’s registration requirement, like Title VII’s numerosity requirement, is located in a provision “separate” from those granting federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over those respective claims. See Arbaugh, supra, at 514-515. Federal district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over copyright infringement actions based on 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331 and 1338. But neither § 1331, which confers subject-matter jurisdiction over questions of federal law, nor § 1338(a), which is specific to copyright claims, conditions its jurisdictional grant on whether copyright holders have registered their works before suing for infringement. Cf. Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 515 (“Title VII’s jurisdictional provision” does not “speeif[y] any threshold ingredient akin to 28 U. S. C. § 1332’s monetary floor”).
Nor does any other factor suggest that 17 U. S. C. §411(a)’s registration requirement can be read to “ ‘speak in jurisdictional terms or refer in any way to the jurisdiction of the district courts.’ ” Arbaugh, supra, at 515 (quoting Zipes, 455 U. S., at 394). First, and most significantly, § 411(a) expressly allows courts to adjudicate infringement claims involving unregistered works in three circumstances: where the work is not a U. S. work, where the infringement claim concerns rights of attribution and integrity under § 106A, or where the holder attempted to register the work and registration was refused. Separately, § 411(c) permits courts to adjudicate infringement actions over certain kinds of unregistered works where the author “declare[s] an intention to secure copyright in the work” and “makes registration for the work, if required by subsection (a), within three months after [the work’s] first transmission.” §§411(c)(l)-<2). It would be at least unusual to ascribe jurisdictional significance to a condition subject to these sorts of exceptions.
That the numerosity requirement in Arbaugh could be considered an element of a Title VII claim, rather than a prerequisite to initiating a lawsuit, does not change this conclusion, as our decision in Zipes demonstrates. Zipes (upon which Arbaugh relied) held that Title YITs requirement that sex-discrimination claimants timely file a discrimination charge with the EEOC before filing a civil action in federal court was nonjurisdietional. See 455 U. S., at 393; 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(f)(l) (establishing specific time periods within which a discrimination claimant must file a lawsuit after filing a charge with the EEOC). A statutory condition that requires a party to take some action before filing a lawsuit is not automatically “a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.” Zipes, 455 U. S., at 393 (emphasis added). Rather, the jurisdictional analysis must focus on the “legal character” of the requirement, id., at 395, which we discerned by looking to the condition’s text, context, and relevant historical treatment, id., at 393-395; see also National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 U. S. 101, 119-121 (2002). We similarly have treated as nonjurisdietional other types of threshold requirements that claimants must complete, or exhaust, before filing a lawsuit.
The registration requirement in 17 U. S. C. § 411(a) fits in this mold. Section 411(a) imposes a precondition to filing a claim that is not clearly labeled jurisdictional, is not located in a jurisdiction-granting provision, and admits of congressionally authorized exceptions. See §§411(a)-(c). Section 411(a) thus imposes a type of precondition to suit that supports nonjurisdietional treatment under our precedents.
C
Amicus insists that our decision in Bowles, 551 U. S. 205, compels a conclusion contrary to the one we reach today. Amicus cites Bowles for the proposition that where Congress did not explicitly label a statutory condition as jurisdictional, a court nevertheless should treat it as such if that is how the condition consistently has been interpreted and if Congress has not disturbed that interpretation. Amicus Brief 26. Specifically, amicus relies on a footnote in Bowles to argue that here, as in Bowles, it would be improper to characterize the statutory condition as nonjurisdictional because doing so would override “ ‘a century’s worth of precedent’” treating §411(a)’s registration requirement as jurisdictional. Amicus Brief 26 (quoting Bowles, swpra, at 209, n. 2). This argument focuses on the result in Bowles, rather than on the analysis we employed.
Bowles did not hold that any statutory condition devoid of an express jurisdictional label should be treated as jurisdictional simply because courts have long treated it as such. Nor did it hold that all statutory conditions imposing a time limit should be considered jurisdictional. Rather, Bowles stands for the proposition that context, including this Court’s interpretation of similar provisions in many years past, is relevant to whether a statute ranks a requirement as jurisdictional.
In Bowles, we considered 28 U. S. C. § 2107, which requires parties in a civil action to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment being appealed, and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which “carries §2107 into practice.” 551 U. S., at 208. After analyzing §2107’s specific language and this Court’s historical treatment of the type of limitation §2107 imposes (1 e., statutory deadlines for filing appeals), we concluded that Congress had ranked the statutory condition as jurisdictional. Our focus in Bowles on the historical treatment of statutory conditions for taking an appeal is thus consistent with the Arbaugh framework. Indeed, Bowles emphasized that this Court had long treated such conditions as jurisdictional, including in statutes other than §2107, and specifically in statutes that predated the creation of the eourts of appeals. See 551 U. S., at 209-210, and n. 2.
Bowles therefore demonstrates that the relevant question here is not (as amicus puts it) whether § 411(a) itself has long been labeled jurisdictional, but whether the type of limitation that § 411(a) imposes is one that is properly ranked as jurisdictional absent an express designation. The statutory limitation in Bowles was of a type that we had long held did “speak in jurisdictional terms” even absent a “jurisdictional” label, and nothing about § 2107’s text or context, or the historical treatment of that type of limitation, justified a departure from this view. That was not the case, however, for the types of conditions in Zvpes and Arbaugh.
Here, that same analysis leads us to conclude that § 411(a) does not implicate the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts. Although § 411 (a)’s historical treatment as “jurisdictional” is a factor in the analysis, it is not dispositive. The other factors discussed above demonstrate that §411(a)’s registration requirement is more analogous to the nonjurisdictional conditions we considered in Zipes and Arbaugk than to the statutory time limit at issue in Bowles. We thus conclude that §411(a)’s registration requirement is nonjurisdictional, notwithstanding its prior jurisdictional treatment.
III
Amicus argues that even if § 411(a) is nonjurisdietional, we should nonetheless affirm on estoppel grounds the Court of Appeals’ judgment vacating the District Court’s order approving the settlement and dismissing the case. According to amicus, petitioners asserted previously in these proceedings that copyright registration was jurisdictional, and this assertion should estop them from now asserting a right to waive objections to the authors’ failure to register. Amicus urges us to prevent the parties “from ‘playing fast and loose with the courts’ by ‘deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.’” Amicus Brief 58 (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U. S. 742, 750 (2001)).
We agree that some statements in the parties’ submissions to the District Court and the Court of Appeals are in tension with their arguments here. But we decline to apply judicial estoppel. As we explained in New Hampshire, that doctrine typically applies when, among other things, a “party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or the second court was misled.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted).
Such circumstances do not exist here for two reasons. First, the parties made their prior statements when negotiating or defending the settlement agreement. We do not fault the parties’ lawyers for invoking in the negotiations binding Circuit precedent that supported their clients’ positions. Perhaps more importantly, in approving the settlement, the District Court did not adopt petitioners’ interpretation of § 411(a) as jurisdictional. Second, when the Court of Appeals asked petitioners to brief whether § 411(a) restricted the District Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, they argued that it did not, and the Court of Appeals rejected their arguments. See App. to Reply Brief for Petitioners 3a-5a, and n. 2. Accepting petitioners’ arguments here thus cannot create “inconsistent court determinations” in their favor. New Hampshire, supra, at 751 (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore hold that the District Court had authority to adjudicate the parties’ request to approve their settlement.
IV
Our holding that § 411(a) does not restrict a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction precludes the need for us to address the parties’ alternative arguments as to whether the District Court had authority to approve the settlement even under the Court of Appeals’ erroneous reading of §411. In concluding that the District Court had jurisdiction to approve the settlement, we express no opinion on the settlement’s merits.
We also decline to address whether §411(a)’s registration requirement is a mandatory precondition to suit that — like the threshold conditions in Arizona v. California, 530 U. S. 392, 412-413 (2000) (res judicata defense); Day v. McDonough, 547 U. S. 198, 205-206 (2006) (habeas statute of limitations); and Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U. S. 20, 26, 31 (1989) (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 notice provision) — district courts may or should enforce sua sponte by dismissing copyright infringement claims involving unregistered works.
* * *
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Other sections of the Act — principally §§408-410 — detail the registration process, and establish remedial incentives to encourage copyright holders to register their works, see, e. g., § 410(c); 17 U. S. C. §412 (2006 ed. and Supp. II).
See La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F. 3d 1195, 1200-1201 (CA10 2005); Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Records Inc., 394 F. 3d 357, 365 (CA5 2004); Zoom, Inc. v. Image-line, Inc., 323 F. 3d 279, 283 (CA4 2003); Murray Hill Publications, Inc. v. ABC Communications, Inc., 264 F. 3d 622, 630, and n. 1 (GA6 2001); Brewer-Giorgio v. Producers Video, Inc., 216 F. 3d 1281, 1285 (CA11 2000); Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp., 36 F. 3d 1147, 1163 (CA1 1994).
We appointed Deborah Jones Merritt to brief and argue the case, as amicus curiae, in support of the Court of Appeals’ judgment. Ms. Merritt has ably discharged her assigned responsibilities.
See Act of Mar. 4, 1909, § 12, 35 Stat. 1078.
Cf. Zipes, 455 U. S., at 398-394, 397 (relying on the fact that Congress had “approved” at least some cases awarding Title VII relief to claimants who had not complied with the statute’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filing requirement in holding that the filing requirement was not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit); United States v. Cotton, 535 U. S. 625, 630 (2002) (“[Jjurisdietion” properly refers to a court’s power to hear a case, a matter that “can never be forfeited or waived”).
See Jones v. Bock, 549 U. S. 199, 211 (2007) (treating the administrative exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) — which states that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted,” 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a) — as an affirmative defense even though “[t]here is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court”); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U. S. 81, 93 (2006) (same).
Bowles, for example, distinguished Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U. S. 401 (2004), which characterized as nonjurisdictional an express statutory-time limit for initiating postjudgment proceedings for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See 551 U. S., at 211. As we explained, the time limit in Scarborough “concerned ‘a mode of relief. .. ancillary to the judgment of a court’ that already had plenary jurisdiction.” 551 U. S., at 211 (quoting Scarborough, supra, at 418; emphasis added). Bowles also distinguished Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443 (2004), and Eberhart v. United States, 546 U. S. 12 (2005) (per curiam), as cases in which the Court properly held that certain time limits were nonjurisdictional because they were imposed by rules that did not purport to have any jurisdictional significance. See 551 U. S., at 210-211. Kontrick involved “time constraints applicable to objections to discharge” in bankruptcy proceedings. 540 U. S., at 453. In that case, we first examined 28 U. S. C. § 157(b)(2)(J), the statute “conferring jurisdiction over objections to discharge,” and observed that it did not contain a timeliness requirement. Kontrick, 540 U. S., at 453. Rather, the “time constraints applicable to objections to discharge” were contained in the Bankruptcy Rules, which expressly state that they “ ‘shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the courts.’” See ibid, (quoting Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 9030). Eberhart, in ton, treated as nonjurisdietional certain rules that the Court held “closely parallel[ed]” those in Kontriek. 546 U. S., at 15.
This conclusion mirrors our holding in Zipes that Title VIPs EEOC filing requirement was nonjurisdietional, even though some of our own decisions had characterized it as jurisdictional. See 455 U. S., at 395 (noting that “the legal character of the requirement was not at issue in those” earlier cases); see also National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 U. S. 101, 109, 121 (2002) (relying on the analysis in Zipes).
Amicus’ remaining jurisdictional argument — that the policy goals underlying copyright registration support construing §411(a)’s registration provisions as jurisdictional, see Amicus Brief 45 — is similarly unavailing. We do not agree that a condition should be ranked as jurisdictional merely because it promotes important congressional objectives. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 504, 515-516 (2006) (holding that Title VIPs numerosity requirement is nonjurisdietional even though it serves the important policy goal of “spar[ing] very small businesses from Title VII liability”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases present challenges to the validity of adjudications of civil contempt, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1826 (a), of witnesses before federal grand juries who refused to comply with court orders to testify. The refusals were defended upon the ground that interrogation was to be based upon information obtained from the witnesses’ communications, allegedly intercepted by federal agents by means of illegal wiretapping and electronic surveillance. A provision of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 211, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510-2520, directs that “[w]henever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any... proceeding in or before any... grand jury... if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.” 18 U. S. C. § 2515. The question presented is whether grand jury witnesses, in proceedings under 28 U. S. C. § 1826 (a), are entitled to invoke this prohibition of § 2515 as a defense to contempt charges brought against them for refusing to testify. In No. 71-110, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that they are not entitled to do so. United States v. Gelbard, 443 F. 2d 837 (1971). In No. 71-263, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, en banc, reached the contrary conclusion. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania {Egan), 450 F. 2d 199 (1971); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (Walsh), 450 F. 2d 231 (1971). We granted certiorari. 404 U. S. 990 (1971). We disagree with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and agree with the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
No. 71-110. A federal district judge approved wiretaps by federal agents of the telephones of Perry Paul, an alleged bookmaker, and Jerome Zarowitz, a former executive of a Las Vegas casino. In the course of those taps, the agents overheard conversations between Paul and petitioner Gelbard and between Zarowitz and petitioner Parnas. Petitioners were subsequently called before a federal grand jury convened in Los Angeles to investigate possible violations of federal gambling laws. The Government asserted that petitioners would be questioned about third parties and that the questions would be based upon petitioners’ intercepted telephone conversations. Petitioners appeared before the grand jury, but declined to answer any questions based upon their intercepted conversations until they were afforded an opportunity to challenge the legality of the interceptions. Following a hearing, the United States District Court for the Central District of California found petitioners in contempt and, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1826 (a), committed them to custody for the life of the grand jury or until they answered the questions.
No. 71-263. Respondents Egan and Walsh were called before a federal grand jury convened in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to investigate, among other possible crimes, an alleged plot to kidnap a Government official. Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 2514, both respondents were granted transactional immunity in return for their testimony. Respondents appeared before the grand jury, but refused to answer questions on the ground, among others, that the questions were based upon information overheard from respondents by means of the Government’s illegal wiretapping and electronic surveillance. The Government did not reply to respondents’ allegations. Following a hearing, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found respondents in contempt, and they were also committed to custody pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1826 (a).
Section 1826 (a) expressly limits the adjudication of civil contempt to the case of a grand jury witness who “refuses without just cause shown to comply with an order of the court to testify.” Our inquiry, then, is whether a showing that interrogation would be based upon the illegal interception of the witness’ communications constitutes a showing of “just cause” that precludes a finding of contempt. The answer turns on the construction of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act.
I
In Title III, Congress enacted a comprehensive scheme for the regulation of wiretapping and electronic surveillance. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297, 301-306. Title III authorizes the interception of private wire and oral communications, but only when law enforcement officials are investigating specified serious crimes and receive prior judicial approval, an approval that may not be given except upon compliance with stringent conditions. 18 U. S. C. §§2516, 2518 (l)-(8). If a wire or oral communication is intercepted in accordance with the provisions of Title III, the contents of the communication may be disclosed and used under certain circumstances. 18 U. S. C. § 2517. Except as expressly authorized in Title III, however, all interceptions of wire and oral communications are flatly prohibited. Unauthorized interceptions and the disclosure or use of information obtained through unauthorized interceptions are crimes, 18 U. S. C. §2511 (1), and the victim of such interception, disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520. Title III also bars the use as evidence before official bodies of the contents and fruits of illegal interceptions, 18 U. S. C. § 2515, and provides procedures for moving to suppress such evidence in various proceedings, 18 U. S. C. § 2518 (9) — (10).
The witnesses in these cases were held in contempt for disobeying court orders by refusing to produce evidence — their testimony — before grand juries. Consequently, their primary contention is that § 2515, the evidentiary prohibition of Title III, afforded them a defense to the contempt charges. In addressing that contention, we must assume, in the present posture of these cases, that the Government has intercepted communications of the witnesses and that the testimony the Government seeks from them would be, within the meaning of § 2515, “evidence derived” from the intercepted communications. We must also assume that the communications were not intercepted in accordance with the specified procedures and thus that the witnesses' potential testimony would be “disclosure” in violation of Title III. See 18 U. S. C. §§2511 (1), 2517 (3). In short, we proceed on the premise that § 2515 prohibits the presentation to grand juries of the compelled testimony of these witnesses.
The narrow question, then, is whether under these circumstances the witnesses may invoke the prohibition of § 2515 as a defense to contempt charges brought on the basis of their refusal to obey court orders to testify. We think they may.
The unequivocal language of § 2515 expresses the fundamental policy adopted by Congress on the subject of wiretapping and electronic surveillance. As the congressional findings for Title III make plain, that policy is strictly to limit the employment of those techniques of acquiring information:
“To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications where none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court. Interception of wire and oral communications should further be limited to certain major types of offenses and specific categories of crime with assurances that the interception is justified and that the information obtained thereby will not be misused.” § 801 (d), 82 Stat. 211.
The Senate committee report that accompanied Title III underscores the congressional policy:
“Title III has as its dual purpose (1) protecting the privacy of wire and oral communications, and (2) delineating on a uniform basis the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized. To assure the privacy of oral and wire communications, title III prohibits all wiretapping and electronic surveillance by persons other than duly authorized law enforcement officers engaged in the investigation or prevention of specified types of serious crimes, and only after authorization of a court order obtained after a showing and finding of probable cause.” S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 66 (1968).
Hence, although Title III authorizes invasions of individual privacy under certain circumstances, the protection of privacy was an overriding congressional concern. Indeed, the congressional findings articulate clearly the intent to utilize the evidentiary prohibition of § 2515 to enforce the limitations imposed by Title III upon wiretapping and electronic surveillance:
“In order to protect effectively the privacy of wire and oral communications, to protect the integrity of court and administrative proceedings, and to prevent the obstruction of interstate commerce, it is necessary for Congress to define on a uniform basis the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized, to prohibit any unauthorized interception of such communications, and the use of the contents thereof in evidence in courts and administrative proceedings.” § 801(b), 82 Stat. 211 (emphasis added).
And the Senate report, like the congressional findings, specifically addressed itself to the enforcement, by means of § 2515, of the limitations upon invasions of individual privacy:
“Virtually all concede that the use of wiretapping or electronic surveillance techniques by private unauthorized hands has little justification where communications are intercepted without the consent of one of the participants. No one quarrels with the proposition that the unauthorized use of these techniques by law enforcement agents should be prohibited.... Only by striking at all aspects of the problem can privacy be adequately protected. The prohibition, too, must be enforced with all appropriate sanctions. Criminal penalties have their part to play. But other remedies must be afforded the victim of an unlawful invasion of privacy. Provision must be made for civil recourse for damages. The perpetrator must be denied the fruits of his unlawful actions in civil and criminal proceedings. Each of these objectives is sought by the proposed legislation.” S. Rep. No. 1097, supra, at 69 (emphasis added).
Section 2515 is thus central to the legislative scheme. Its importance as a protection for “the victim of an unlawful invasion of privacy” could not be more clear. The purposes of § 2515 and Title III as a whole would be subverted were the plain command of § 2515 ignored when the victim of an illegal interception is called as a witness before a grand jury and asked questions based upon that interception. Moreover, § 2515 serves not only to protect the privacy of communications, but also to ensure that the courts do not become partners to illegal conduct: the evidentiary prohibition was enacted also “to protect the integrity of court and administrative proceedings.” Consequently, to order a grand jury witness, on pain of imprisonment, to disclose evidence that § 2515 bars in unequivocal terms is both to thwart the congressional objective of protecting individual privacy by excluding such evidence and to entangle the courts in the illegal acts of Government agents.
In sum, Congress simply cannot be understood to have sanctioned orders to produce evidence excluded from grand jury proceedings by § 2515. Contrary to the Government's assertion that the invasion of privacy is over and done with, to compel the testimony of these witnesses compounds the statutorily proscribed invasion of their privacy by adding to the injury of the interception the insult of compelled disclosure. And, of course, Title III makes illegal not only unauthorized interceptions, but also the disclosure and use of information obtained through such interceptions. 18 U. S. C. §2511(1); see 18 U. S. C. § 2520. Hence, if the prohibition of § 2515 is not available as a defense to the contempt charge, disclosure through compelled testimony makes the witness the victim, once again, of a federal crime. Finally, recognition of § 2515 as a defense “relieves judges of the anomalous duty of finding a person in civil contempt for failing to cooperate with the prosecutor in a course of conduct which, if pursued unchecked, could subject the prosecutor himself to heavy civil and criminal penalties.” In re Grand, Jury Proceedings, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (Egan), 450 F. 2d, at 220 (Rosenn, J., concurring). “And for a court, on petition of the executive department, to sentence a witness, who is herself the victim of the illegal wiretapping, to jail for refusal to participate in the exploitation of that crime in violation of the explicit command of Section 2515 is to stand our whole system of criminal justice on its head.” In re Evans, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 310, 323, 452 F. 2d 1239, 1252 (1971) (Wright, J., concurring).
II
Our conclusion that § 2515 is an available defense to the contempt charge finds additional support in 18 U. S. C. § 3504, enacted as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 935. Section 3504 is explicit confirmation that Congress intended that grand jury witnesses, in reliance upon the prohibition of § 2515, might refuse to answer questions based upon the illegal interception of their communications.
Section 3504 provides:
“(a) In any... proceeding in or before any... grand jury....
“(1) upon a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act, the opponent of the claim shall affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act.”
Under § 3504 (a) (2), disclosure of information relating to the claim of inadmissibility is not mandatory if the “unlawful act” took place before June 19, 1968, the effective date of Title III. Under §3504 (a) (3), there is a five-year limitation upon the consideration of a claim of inadmissibility based upon “the exploitation of an unlawful act” that took place before June 19, 1968. Section 3504 (b), by reference to Title III, defines an “unlawful act” as one involving illegal wiretapping or electronic surveillance.
Section 3504, then, establishes procedures to be followed “upon a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because” of an illegal interception. And § 3504 tracks § 2515 in its application to grand jury proceedings. Indeed, “[t]he language used in defining the types of proceedings, types of forums, and jurisdictions in which section 3504 is applicable was taken from 18 U. S. C. §2515.” S. Rep. No. 91-617, p. 154 (1969). In the application of § 3504 to “any... proceeding in or before any... grand jury,” “a party aggrieved” can only be a witness, for there is no other “party” to a grand jury proceeding. Moreover, a “claim... that evidence is inadmissible” can only be a claim that the witness’ potential testimony is inadmissible. Hence, § 3504, by contemplating “a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because” of an illegal interception, necessarily recognizes that grand jury witnesses may rely upon the prohibition of § 2515 in claiming that the evidence sought from them is inadmissible in the grand jury proceedings. Upon such a claim by a grand jury witness, the Government, as “the opponent of the claim,” is required under § 3504 (a)(1) to “affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged” illegal interception. Section 3504 thus confirms that Congress meant that grand jury witnesses might defend contempt charges by invoking the prohibition of § 2515 against the compelled disclosure of evidence obtained in violation of Title III.
The Government urges, however, that the procedures prescribed in § 3504 are limited in application to claims of inadmissibility based upon illegal interceptions that took place before June 19, 1968, and that § 3504 cannot, therefore, provide support for a construction of § 2515. We disagree. While subsections (a) (2) and (a) (3) apply only when the illegal interception took place before June 19, 1968, it is clear both from the face of § 3504 and from its legislative history that subsection (a)(1), imposing the duty upon “the opponent of the claim” to “affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged” illegal interception, is not similarly limited.
The omission of the June 19, 1968, date from subsection (a)(1) was not inadvertent. Subsection (a)(1) was not in the original Senate bill, although the bill did contain counterparts of present subsections (a)(2) and (a) (3) without the June 19, 1968, or any other date limitation. See Hearings before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S. 30 et al., 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 102-105 (1969). Subsection (a)(1) was added at the suggestion of the Department of Justice. At that time the Department followed the practice of searching Government files for information about wiretaps and eavesdropping. The Department advised the Senate Judiciary Committee that while it had been “conducting] such examinations as a matter of policy even in cases where no motion ha[d] been filed... defendants should be assured such an examination by a specific requirement of law rather than hav[ing] to rely upon the continued viability of a current policy.” Id., at 553. The Senate report on § 3504 explained that “since [subsection (a)(1)] requires a pending claim as a predicate to disclosure, it sets aside the present wasteful practice of the Department of Justice in searching files without a motion from a defendant.” S. Rep. No. 91-617, p. 154 (1969).
The reason assigned in the Senate for enacting subsection (a)(1) was thus as applicable to post- as it was to pre-June 19, 1968, interceptions. The same was true of the House. There subsection (a)(1) was supported on the ground that it would be beneficial to the victims of illegal interceptions. Senator McClellan, for example, who testified before the House Subcommittee, indicated that subsection (a)(1) “places upon the Government an affirmative duty to answer a claim that evidence is inadmissible because of unlawful investigative conduct.” “The first requirement [of § 3504], that the Government admit or deny the occurrence of the alleged invasion of the defendant’s rights, actually places or codifies a burden upon the Government, rather than the defendant.” Hearings before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary on S. 30 et al., 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 84, 104 (1970). Other witnesses thought the provision unnecessary. Indeed, one organization submitted a report that disapproved subsection (a)(1) on the ground that the Government should admit illegalities without a prior claim. Id., at 562 (Section of Criminal Law of the American Bar Association). It is also significant that congressional questioning of a representative of the Department of Justice at the hearings was directed to the Department’s views on the insertion of a date limitation only in subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3). Id., at 659; see the Department’s written response, id., at 675-676.
The June 19, 1968, date was inserted in subsections (a) (2) and (a) (3) after the conclusion of the House hearings. It is apparent from the House report that only subsections (a) (2) and (a) (3) of the Senate version were to be limited by the June 19, 1968, date and that subsection (a)(1) was to be operative without regard to when the alleged illegal interception may have taken place:
"Paragraph (1) provides that upon a claim by an aggrieved party that evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act, or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act, the opponent of the claim must affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act. Under this provision, upon a charge by the defendant with standing to challenge the alleged unlawful conduct, the Government would be required to affirm or deny that an unlawful act involving electronic surveillance had in fact occurred. If such an unlawful act had in fact occurred, paragraph (2), below, will govern disclosure of the contents of the electronic surveillance records or transcripts to the defendant and his counsel, unless paragraph (3) applies.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, p. 51 (1970).
This explanation demonstrates that “the opponent of the claim” has a duty to “affirm or deny” whenever “a party aggrieved” “claim [s]... that evidence is inadmissible because it is” derived from an illegal interception. The date June 19, 1968, becomes relevant only after it is determined that an illegal interception took place and an issue thus arises as to disclosure of information bearing on the claim.
III
The Government argues, finally, that while § 2515 could be construed to allow a grand jury witness to invoke its prohibition as a defense to a contempt charge, “[i]f this section were the only relevant portion of [Title III],” Brief for the United States in No. 71-263, p. 19, proceedings before grand juries are omitted from another provision of Title III, § 2518 (10) (a), that authorizes “[a]ny aggrieved person,” in specified types of proceedings, to “move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom.” But it does not follow from the asserted omission of grand jury proceedings from the suppression provision that grand jury witnesses cannot invoke § 2515 as a defense in a contempt proceeding under 28 U. S. C. § 1826 (a). The congressional concern with the applicability of §2518 (10) (a) in grand jury proceedings, so far as it is discernible from the Senate report, was apparently that defendants and potential defendants might be able to utilize suppression motions to impede the issuance of indictments: “Normally, there is no limitation on the character of evidence that may be presented to a grand jury, which is enforcible by an individual. [United States v. Blue, 384 U. S. 251 (1966).] There is no intent to change this general rule.” S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 106 (1968). The “general rule,” as illustrated in Blue, is that a defendant is not entitled to have his indictment dismissed before trial simply because the Government “acquire [d] incriminating evidence in violation of the [law],” even if the “tainted evidence was presented to the grand jury.” 384 U. S., at 255 and n. 3; see Lawn v. United States, 355 U. S. 339 (1958); Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359 (1956). But that rule has nothing whatever to do with the situation of a grand jury witness who has refused to testify and attempts to defend a subsequent charge of contempt. Hence, we cannot agree that the Senate report expressed the view that a grand jury witness would be foreclosed from raising the § 2515 defense in a contempt proceeding under § 1826 (a).
Furthermore, grand jury witnesses do not normally discover whether they may refuse to answer questions by filing motions to suppress their potential testimony. The usual procedure is, upon the Government’s motion, to have a court order a grand jury witness to testify upon penalty of contempt for noncompliance. Section 1826 (a) embodies that traditional procedure. The asserted omission of grand jury proceedings from § 2518 (10) (a) may well reflect congressional acceptance of that procedure as adequate in these cases. Consequently, we cannot suppose that Congress, by providing procedures for suppression motions, intended to deprive grand jury witnesses of the § 2515 defense that would otherwise be available to them. Although the Government points to statements in the Senate report to the effect that §2518 (10) (a) “limits” §2515, we read those statements to mean that suppression motions, as a method of enforcing the prohibition of § 2515, must be made in accordance with the restrictions upon forums, procedures, and grounds specified in §2518 (10)(a).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in No. 71-110 is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in No. 71-263 is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Section 1826 (a) provides:
“Whenever a witness in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States refuses without just cause shown to comply with an order of the court to testify or provide other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording or other material, the court, upon such refusal, or when such refusal is duly brought to its attention, may summarily order his confinement at a suitable place until such time as the witness is willing to give such testimony or provide such information. No period of such confinement shall exceed the life of—
“(1) the court proceeding, or
“(2) the term of the grand jury, including extensions,
“before which such refusal to comply with the court order occurred, but in no event shall such confinement exceed eighteen months.” This provision was enacted as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. It was intended to codify the existing practice of the federal courts. S. Rep. No. 91-617, pp. 33,. 56-57, 148-149 (1969); H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, pp. 33, 46 (1970); see Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364 (1966).
Section 2515 provides in full:
“Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.”
The Third Circuit followed Egan in In re Grand Jury Investigation (Maratea), 444 F. 2d 499 (1971) (en banc). The District of Columbia Circuit has aligned itself with the Third, see In re Evans, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 310, 452 F. 2d 1239 (1971), while the Ninth has continued to follow Gelbard, see Bacon v. United States, 446 F. 2d 667 (1971); Olsen v. United States, 446 F. 2d 912 (1971); In re Russo, 448 F. 2d 369 (1971); Reed v. United States, 448 F. 2d 1276 (1971); United States v. Reynolds, 449 F. 2d 1347 (1971). The First and Fifth Circuits have also adverted to the question. United States v. Doe (In re Marx), 451 F. 2d 466 (CA1 1971); United States v. Doe (In re Popkin), 460 F. 2d 328 (CA1 1972); Dudley v. United States, 427 F. 2d 1140 (CA5 1970). See also United States ex rel. Rosado v. Flood, 394 F. 2d 139 (CA2 1968); Carter v. United States, 417 F. 2d 384 (CA9 1969).
See n. 23, injra.
In view of our disposition of these cases, we do not reach any of the constitutional issues tendered as to the right of a grand jury witness to rely upon the Fourth Amendment as a basis for refusing to answer questions. We also note that the constitutionality of Title III is not challenged in these cases.
“Paragraph (d) recognizes the responsible part that the judiciary must play in supervising the interception of wire or oral communications in order that the privacy of innocent persons may be protected:... the interception or use of wire or oral communications should only be on court order. Because of the importance of privacy, such interceptions should further be limited to major offenses and care must be taken to insure that no misuse is made of any information obtained.” S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 89 (1968).
In stating the problem addressed by Congress in Title III, the Senate report noted that “[b]oth proponents and opponents of wiretapping and electronic surveillance agree that the present state of the law in this area is extremely unsatisfactory and that the Congress should act to clarify the resulting confusion.” Id., at 67. The report agreed: “It would be, in short, difficult to devise a body of law from the point of view of privacy or justice more totally unsatisfactory in its consequences.” Id.., at 69. The report then stressed that Title III would provide the protection for privacy lacking under the prior law:
“The need for comprehensive, fair and effective reform setting uniform standards is obvious. New protections for privacy must be enacted. Guidance and supervision must be given to State and Federal law enforcement officers. This can only be accomplished through national legislation. This the subcommittee proposes.” Ibid, (emphasis added).
“Paragraph (b) recognizes that to protect the privacy of wire and oral communications, to protect the integrity of court and administrative proceeding]^] and to prevent the obstruction of interstate commerce, it is necessary for Congress to define on a uniform basis the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire or oral communications may be authorized. It also finds that all unauthorized interception of such communications should be prohibited, as well as the use of the contents of unauthorized interceptions as evidence in courts and administrative hearings.” Id., at 89 (emphasis added).
“Section 2515 of the new chapter imposes an evidentiary sanction to compel compliance with the other prohibitions of the chapter. It provides that intercepted wire or oral communications or evidence derived therefrom may not be received in evidence in any proceeding before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, where the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.... [I]t is not limited to criminal proceedings. Such a suppression rule is necessary and proper to protect privacy. The provision thus forms an integral part of the system of limitations designed to protect privacy. Along with the criminal and civil remedies, it should serve to guarantee that the standards of the new chapter will sharply crfrtail the unlawful interception of wire and oral communications.” Id,., at 96 (citations omitted).
Congressional concern with the protection of the privacy of communications is evident also in the specification of what is to be protected. “The proposed legislation is intended to protect the privacy of the communication itself... Id., at 90. As defined in Title III, “ 'contents/ when used with respect to any wire or oral communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.” 18 U. S. C. § 2510 (8). The definition thus “include[s] all aspects of the communication itself. No aspect, including the identity of the parties, the substance of the communication between them, or the fact of the communication itself, is excluded. The privacy of the communication to be protected is intended to be comprehensive.” S. Rep. No. 1097, supra, at 91.
Section 3504 provides in full:
“(a) In any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States—
“(1) upon a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act, the opponent of the claim shall affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act;
“(2) disclosure of information for a determination if evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act occurring prior to June 19, 1968, or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act occurring prior to June 19, 1968, shall not be required unless such information may be relevant to a pending claim of such inadmissibility; and
“(3) no claim shall be considered that evidence of an event is inadmissible on the ground that such evidence was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act occurring prior to June 19, 1968, if such event occurred more than five years after such allegedly unlawful act.
'■'(b) As used in this section 'unlawful act' means any act [involving] the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device (as defined in section 2510 (5) of this title) in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any regulation or standard promulgated pursuant thereto.”
No question as to the constitutionality of §3504 is raised in these cases.
“The only exception is that section 350 [4] omits legislative committees.” S. Rep. No. 91-617, p. 154 (1969). In addition, the House amended § 3504, as passed by the Senate, so that, unlike § 2515, it “applies only to trials and other proceedings conducted under authority of the United States.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, p. 51 (1970).
The references to June 19, 1968, appear only in subsections (a) (2) and (a)(3). Subsection (a)(1) does not similarly limit the term “unlawful act” with the phrase “occurring prior to June 19, 1968.” See n. 11, supra. It is thus plain on the face of § 3504 that Congress did not make the duty imposed by subsection (a) (1) dependent upon the date of the alleged illegal interception.
The Senate passed § 3504 in a form that, so far as is pertinent to the issue before us, differed from the section as finally enacted only in that subsections (a) (2) and (a) (3) in the Senate version were not limited in application to illegal interceptions that took place before June 19, 1968. See S. Rep. No. 91-617, pp. 15,. 70 (1969).
“[Subsection (a)(1)] provides that in an attack upon the admissibility of evidence because it is the product of an unlawful act..., the opponent of such claim shall affirm or deny the alleged unlawful act.... In this respect. [§ 3504] is unnecessary.” Hearings before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Judiciary Committee on S. 30 et al., 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 399 (1970) (report of the Committee on Federal Legislation of the New York County Lawyers
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Georgia’s 1962 Senatorial Reapportionment Act appor- . tions the 54 seats of the Georgia Senate among the State’s 159 counties. The 54 senatorial districts created by the Act are drawn, so far as possible, along existing , county lines; Thirty-three of the senatorial districts are made up of from one to eight counties each, and voters in these districts elect their senators by a district-wide vote. The remaining 21 senatorial districts are allotted in groups of from two to seven among the seven most populous counties, but voters in these districts do not elect a senator by a district-wide vote; instead they join with the voters of the other districts of the county in electing all the county’s senators by á county-wide vote.
The appellees, registered voters of Georgia, brought this action in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Secretary of State of Georgia and local election officials seeking a decree that the requirement of county-wide voting in the seven multi-district counties violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge court granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment, stating that “The statute causes a clear difference in the treatment accorded voters in each of the two classes of senatorial districts. It is the same law applied differently to different" persons. The voters select their own senator in one class of districts. In the other they do not. They must join with others in selecting a group of senators and their own choice of a senator may be nullified by what voters in other districts of the group desire. This difference is a discrimination as between voters in the two classes. . . . The statute here is nothing more than a classification of voters in senatorial districts on the basis of homesite, to the end that some are allowed to select their representatives while others are not. It is an invidious discrimination tested by any standard.” 228 F. Supp. 259, 263. We noted probable jurisdiction, 379 U. S. 810. We reverse.
Only last Term, in our opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, decided after the decision below, we rejected the notion that equal protection necessarily requires the formation of single-member districts. In discussing the impact on bicameralism of the equal-protection standards, we said, “One body could be composed of single-member districts while the other could have at least some multi-member districts.” 377 U. S., at 577. (Emphasis supplied.) Again, in holding that a State might legitimately desire to maintain the integrity of various political subdivisions, such as counties, we said: “Single-member districts may be the rule in one State, while another State might desire to achieve some flexibility by creating multi-member or floterial districts. Whatever the means of accomplishment, the overriding objective must-be substantial equality of population among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State.” 377 U. S., at 579. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is not contended that there is not “substantial equality of population” among the 54 senatorial districts. The equal protection argument is focused solely upon the question whether county-wide voting in the seven multi-district counties results in denying the residents therein a vote “approximately equal in weight to that of” voters resident in the single-member constituencies. Contrary to the District Court, we cannot say. that it does. There is .clearly no mathematical disparity. Fulton County, the State’s largest constituency, has a population nearly seven times larger than that of a single-district constituency and for that reason elects seven senators. Every Fulton County voter, therefore, may vote for seven senators to represent his interests in the legislature. But the appellees assert that this scheme is defective because county-wide voting in multi-district counties could, as a matter of mathematics, result in the nullification of the unanimous choice of the voters of a district, thereby thrusting upon them a senator for whom no one in the district had voted. But this is only a highly hypothetical assertion that, in any event, ignores the practical realities of representation in a multi-member constituency. It is not accurate to treat a senator from a multi-district county as the representative of only that district within the county wherein he resides. The statute uses districts in multi-district counties merely as the basis of residence for candidates, not for voting or representation. Each district’s senator must be a resident of that district, but since his tenure depends upon the county-wide electorate he must be vigilant to serve the interests of all the people in the county, and not merely those of people in his home district; thus in. fact he is the county’s and not merely the district’s senator. If the weight of the vote of any voter in a Fulton County district, when he votes for seven senators to represent him in the Georgia Senate, is not the exact equivalent of that of a. resident of a single-member constituency, we cannot say that his vote is not “approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State*”
In reversing the District Court we should emphasize that the equal-protection claim below was based upon an alleged infirmity that attaches to the statute on its face. Agreeing with appellees’ contention that the multi-mem-ber constituency feature of the Georgia scheme was per se bad, the District Court entered the decree on summary judgment. We treat the question as presented in that context, and our opinion is not to be understood to say that in all instances or under all circumstances such a system as Georgia has will comport with the dictates of . the Equal Protection Clause. It might well be that, designedly or otherwise, a multi-member constituency apportionment scheme, under the circumstances of a particular casé, would operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting population. When this is demonstrated it will be time enough to consider whether the system still passes constitutional muster. This question, however, is not presented by the record before us. It is true that appel-lees asserted in one Short paragraph of their brief in this Court that the county-wide election method was resorted to by Georgia in order to minimize the strength of racial and political minorities in the populous urban counties. But appellees never seriously pressed , this point below and offered no proof to support it,, the District Court did not consider or rule on its merits, and in oral argument here counsel for appellees stressed that they do not rely on this argument. The record thus does not contain any substantiation of the bald assertion in appellees’ brief. Since, under these circumstances, this issue has "not been formulated to bring it into focus, and the evidence has not been offered or appraised to decide it, our holding has no bearing on that' wholly separate question.” Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52, 58.
Reversed.
Ga. Laws, Sept.-Oct. 1962, Extra. Sess., pp. 7-31; Ga. Code Ann. §47-102 (Cum. Supp. 1963). Section 9, the provision in question here, provides in pertinent part that:
“Each Senator must be a resident of his own Senatorial District and shall be elected by the voters of his own District, .except that the Senators from those Senatorial Districts consisting of less than one county shall be elected by all the voters of the county in which such Senatorial District is located.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Shortly after the enactment of this statute, and prior to the election of senators under it in.the 1962 general elections, an action was brought in a state court that challenged the validity of the above provision under the Georgia Constitution. The state court held that the exception in' the 1962 statute was unconstitutional as a matter of state law under the then-existing Georgia Constitution. Finch v. Gray, No. A 96441 (Fulton County Super. Ct., Oct. 30, 1962). The court entered a permanent injunction requiring that elections in Fulton and DeKalb Counties-be held on a district-wide basis only. Appeal was taken from this decision but was withdrawn. In its opinion the Georgia Court noted that the Georgia Legislature had authorized the submission of a constitutional amendment to the people ratifying the 1962 reapportionment statute with its multi-district-voting exception and all elections held under that statute. (The amendment was ratified. See Ga. Const. Art. III, § II, par. I; Ga. Code Ann. § 2-1401 (Cum. Supp. 1963).) The court stated concerning the proposed amendment:
“It. is to be observed that by Paragraph (b) of said proposed Amendment to the Constitution, the -General Assembly submitted to the people the question whether they would ratify the Reapportionment Act and elections thereunder. This proposed Amendment, of course, is prospective and will become a part of the Constitution only if ratified by the voters in the coming general election.
“The effect of ratification by the people of the Reapportionment Act containing the unconstitutional exception aforesaid is not now before the Court for determination. See, however, on this subject: Walker v. Wilcox Co., 95 Apps. 185; Hammond v. Clark, 136 Ga. 313; Bailey v. Housing Authority of City, of Bainbridge, 214 Ga. 790; Grayson-Robinson Stores, Inc. v. Oneida, Ltd., 209 Ga. 613; 9 Mercer L. Rev. 194, 195; 11 Am. Juris., page 832, section 151. The importance here of the aforesaid proposed constitutional Amendment is simply for the light .it sheds upon the intention of the General Assembly in enacting the Reapportionment statute.”
The question of Georgia law raised by the decisions cited by the court as to whether a statute declared unconstitutional under Georgia law may be revived by a subsequent constitutional amendment was not raised below and has not been urged here. Of course, this question of Georgia law is not for us; our decision concerns only the federal constitutional question presented and argued.
These 33 senatorial districts embrace 152 of the State’s 159 counties. Of the 33 districts, only two consist of single counties; the remaining 31 districts are comprised of from two to eight counties each.
Appellees take as their example Senatorial District 34, in which there are 82,195 of Fulton County’s total of 556, 326 voters. They say, as a matter of mathematics, that even if every voter in District 34 voted for the same candidate from that district, less than 18% of the voters in the other six districts within the county (i. e., approximately 85,000 of the remaining 474, 131 voters in the county) could outvote the unanimous choice of District 34 voters. First of. all, there is no demonstration that this is likely in- light of the political composition of District 34 vis-a-vis that of the rest of the county. (In fact, the 1962 elections .in both Fulton and DeKalb Counties— wherein all appellees reside — were conducted on a district-wide basis rather than a county-wide basis. See note 1, supra.) But apart from this, appellees’ mathematics are misleading, for not only will the 18%, or 85,000, of the remaining Fulton County voters vote for a senatorial candidate resident in District 34, but,, also the remaining 389,131 voters will presumably participate in his election. Assuming these additional vot.ers split their votes almost evenly between two candidates running from District 34 — the most “favorable” assumption-for appellees in that it will produce the smallest possible percentage of voters who can outvote the unanimous choice of the voters in District 34 — there will be approximately 280,000 votes against the choice- of the voters in the 34th District, or about 59% of the remaining, out-of-district vote. This is a far cry from the 18% figure calculated by appellees. And, even if, on some odd chance, only 85,000 voters outside of District 34 participate in the selection of a senator from that district, and all vote against the unanimous choice of District 34 voters, the 18% figure is still misleading. For in this eventuality, the relevant voting constituency consists of something under 170,000 voters, and close to 100% — not 18% — of the out-of-district vote has to be cast against-the choice of the in-district vote in order to outvote the latter. Our decision should not be read, however, as resting upon the misleading aspects of appellees’ calculations;
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The first issue in this case is whether income that a tax-exempt charitable organization derives from offering group insurance to its members constitutes “unrelated business income” subject to tax under §§511 through 513 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), 26 U. S. C. §§511-513. The second issue is whether the organization’s members may claim a charitable deduction for the portion of their premium payments that exceeds the actual cost to the organization of providing insurance.
I
Respondent American Bar Endowment (ABE) is a corporation exempt from taxation under § 501(c)(3) of the Code, which, with certain exceptions not relevant here, exempts organizations “organized and operated exclusively for . . . charitable ... or educational purposes.” ABE’s primary purposes are to advance legal research and to promote the administration of justice, and it furthers these goals primarily through the distribution of grants to other charitable and educational groups. All members of the American Bar Association (ABA) are automatically members of ABE. The ABA is exempt from taxation as a “business league” under § 501(c)(6).
ABE raises money for its charitable work by providing group insurance policies, underwritten by major insurance companies, to its members. Approximately 20% of ABE’s members participate in the group insurance program, which offers life, health, accident, and disability policies. ABE negotiates premium rates with insurers and chooses which insurers shall provide the policies. It also compiles a list of its own members and solicits them, collects the premiums paid by its members, transmits those premiums to the insurer, maintains files on each policyholder, answers members’ questions concerning insurance policies, and screens claims for benefits.
There are two important benefits of purchasing insurance as a group rather than individually. The first is that ABE’s size gives it bargaining power that individuals lack. The second is that the group policy is experience rated. This means that the cost of insurance to the group is based on that group’s claims experience, rather than general actuarial tables. Because ABA members have favorable mortality and morbidity rates, experience rating results in a substantially lower insurance cost. When ABE purchases a group policy for its members, it pays a negotiated premium to the insurance company. If, as is uniformly true, the insurance company’s actual cost of providing insurance to the group is lower than the premium paid in a given year, the insurance company pays a refund of the excess, called a “dividend,” to ABE. Critical to ABE’s fundraising efforts is the fact that ABE requires its members to agree, as a condition of participating in the group insurance program, that they will permit ABE to keep all of the dividends rather than distributing them pro rata to the insured members.
It would be possible for ABE to negotiate lower premium rates for its members than the rates it has charged throughout the relevant period, and thus receive a lower dividend. However, ABE prices its policies competitively with other insurance policies offered to the public and to ABE members. 761 F. 2d 1573, 1575 (CAFC 1985). In this way ABE is able to generate large dividends to be used for its charitable purposes. In recent years the total amount of dividends has exceeded 40% of the members’ premium payments. Ibid. ABE advises its insured members that each member’s share of the dividends, less ABE’s administrative costs, constitutes a tax-deductible contribution from the member to ABE. Thus the after-tax cost of ABE’s insurance to its members is less than the cost of a commercial policy with identical coverage and premium rates.
In 1980 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) advised ABE that it considered ABE’s insurance plan an “unrelated trade or business” and that the profits thereon were subject to tax under §§ 511-513. Subsequently IRS audited ABE’s tax returns for 1979 and 1980 and assessed a tax deficiency on ABE’s net revenues from the insurance program. ABE paid those taxes, as well as taxes on the 1981 revenues. After exhausting administrative remedies, it brought an action for a refund in the Claims Court, arguing that its revenues from the insurance program were not subject to tax. At approximately the same time, the individual respondents, who were participants in the ABE insurance program but who had not originally deducted any part of the insurance premiums as charitable contributions, brought suit for refunds in the Claims Court as well. The individual respondents argued that they were entitled to charitable deductions for a portion of those premium payments. The two suits were consolidated for trial in the Claims Court.
The Claims Court entered judgment for ABE in its suit, finding that ABE’s provision of insurance to its members did not constitute a “trade or business” subject to tax. 4 Cl. Ct. 404 (1984). It found for the Government, however, on the individual respondents’ claims. The court concluded that a taxpayer may claim a charitable contribution for a portion of a payment for goods or services only when he can show that “he bought goods or services for more than their economic value, with the intention that the excess be used to benefit a charitable enterprise,” id., at 415 (citation omitted), and that the individual respondents had not established these facts. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed as to ABE’s taxes. 761 F. 2d, at 1577. As to the individual respondents, however the court reversed and remanded for further factfinding. We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari on both issues, 474 U. S. 1004 (1985), and we now reverse.
II
We recently discussed the history and structure of the unrelated business income provisions of the Code in United States v. American College of Physicians, 475 U. S. 834 (1986). The Code imposes a tax, at ordinary corporate rates, on the income that a tax-exempt organization obtains from an “unrelated trade or business . . . regularly carried on by it.” §§ 512(a)(1), 511(a)(1). An “unrelated trade or business” is “any trade or business the conduct of which is not substantially related ... to the exercise or performance by such organization of its charitable, educational, or other purpose,” § 513(a). The Code thus sets up a three-part test. ABE’s insurance program is taxable if it (1) constitutes a trade or business; (2) is regularly carried on; and (3) is not substantially related to ABE’s tax-exempt purposes. Treas. Reg. § 1.513 — 1(a), 26 CFR § 1.513-l(a) (1985); American College of Physicians, supra, at 838-839. ABE concedes that the latter two portions of this test are satisfied. 761 F. 2d, at 1576. Its defense is based solely on the proposition that its insurance program does not constitute a trade or business.
A
In the Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-172, 83 Stat. 487, Congress defined a “trade or business” as “any activity which is carried on for the production of income from the sale of goods or the performance of services,” § 513(c). The Secretary of the Treasury has provided further clarification of that definition in Treas. Reg. § 1.513-1 (b) (1985), which provides: “in general, any activity of [an exempt] organization which is carried on for the production of income and which otherwise possesses the characteristics required to constitute ‘trade or business’ within the meaning of section 162” is a trade or business for purposes of 26 U. S. C. §§ 511-513.
ABE’s insurance program falls within the literal language of these definitions. ABE’s activity is both “the sale of goods” and “the performance of services,” and possesses the general characteristics of a trade or business. Certainly the assembling of a group of better-than-average insurance risks, negotiating on their behalf with insurance companies, and administering a group policy are activities that can be — and are — provided by private commercial entities in order to make a profit. ABE itself earns considerable income from its program. Nevertheless, the Claims Court and Court of Appeals concluded that ABE does not carry out its insurance program in order to make a profit. The Claims Court relied on the former Court of Claims holding, in Disabled American Veterans v. United States, 650 F. 2d 1178, 1187 (1981), that an activity is a trade or business only if “operated in a competitive, commercial manner.” See 4 Cl. Ct., at 409. Because ABE does not operate its insurance program in a competitive, commercial manner, the Claims Court decided, that program is not a trade or business. The Court of Appeals adopted this reasoning. 761 F. 2d, at 1577.
The Claims Court rested its conclusion on four factors. First, it found that “the program was devised as a means for fundraising and has been so presented and perceived from its inception.” 4 Cl. Ct., at 409. Second, the court found that the program’s phenomenal success in generating dividends for ABE was evidence of noncommercial behavior. The court noted that ABE’s insurance program has provided $81.9 million in dividends in its 28 years of operation, and concluded that such large profits could not be the result of commercial success, but must proceed from the generosity of ABE’s members. Third, and most important, in the court’s view, was the fact that ABE’s members collectively had the power to change ABE’s conduct of the insurance program so as to drastically reduce premiums. That the members had not done so was strong evidence that they sought to further ABE’s charitable purposes by paying higher insurance rates than necessary. Fourth, because ABE did not underwrite insurance or act as a broker, it was not competing with other commercial entities.
It appears, then, that the Claims Court viewed ABE as engaging in two separate activities — the provision of insurance and the acceptance of contributions in the form of dividends. If so, the unspoken premise of the Claims Court’s decision is that ABE’s income is not a result of the first activity, but of the second. There is some sense to this reasoning; should ABE sell a product to its members for more than that product’s fair market value, it could argue to the IRS that the members intended to pay excessive prices as a form of contribution, and that some formula should be adopted to separate the income received into taxable profits and nontaxable contributions. Even if we viewed it as appropriate for the federal courts to engage in such a quasi-legislative activity, however, there is no factual basis for the Claims Court’s attempt to do so in this case.
B
We cannot agree with the Claims Court that the enormous dividends generated by ABE’s insurance program demonstrate that those dividends cannot constitute “profits.” Were ABE’s insurance markedly more expensive than other insurance products available to its members, but ABE nevertheless kept the patronage of those members, we might plausibly conclude that generosity was the reason for the program’s success. The Claims Court did not find, however, that this was the case. ABE prices its insurance to remain competitive with the rest of the market. Id., at 406. Thus ABE’s members never squarely face the decision whether to support ABE or to reduce their own insurance costs.
The Claims Court concluded that “such profit margins [as ABE’s] cannot be maintained year after year in a competitive market.” Id., at 410. The court apparently reasoned that ABE’s staggering success would inevitably induce other firms to offer similar programs to ABA members unless that success is the result of charitable intentions rather than price-sensitive purchasing decisions. It is possible, of course, that ABE’s members genuinely intend to support ABE by paying higher premiums than necessary, and would pay those high premiums even if a competing group insurance plan offered very low premiums. But that is by no means the only possible explanation for the market’s failure to provide competition for ABE. Lacking a factual basis for concluding that generosity is at the core of ABE’s success, we can easily view this case as a standard example of monopoly pricing. ABE has a unique asset — its access to the ABA’s members and their highly favorable mortality and morbidity rates — and it has chosen to appropriate for itself all of the profit possible from that asset, rather than sharing any with its members.
The argument that ABE’s members could change the insurance program and receive the bulk of the dividends themselves if they so desired is unconvincing. Were ABE to give each member a choice between retaining his pro rata share of dividends or assigning thenrto ABE, the organization would have a strong argument that those dividends constituted a voluntary donation. That, however, is not the case here. ABE requires its members to assign it all dividends as a condition for participating in the insurance program. It is simply incorrect to characterize the assignment of dividends by each member as “voluntary” simply because the members theoretically could band together and attempt to change the policy.
Again, the Claims Court put too much weight on an unsupported assumption. It found that the program was “operated with the approval and consent of the ABA membership,” ibid., observing that the program had met with “surprisingly little dissent,” id., at 411, even though there were “ample” opportunities for members to change policies with which they disagreed, ibid. We believe that those facts cannot carry the weight that the Claims Court put on them. Perhaps each member that purchases insurance would, given the option, pay excessive premiums in order to support ABE’s charitable purposes; however, that is not the only possible explanation for the members’ failure to change the program. Any given member might feel that the potential savings in insurance costs are not sufficient to justify the effort required to mount a challenge to ABE’s leadership. Many might not want to “make waves” and upset a program that generates tax-free income for ABE and charitable deductions for their fellow members. The members’ theoretical ability to change the program, therefore, is at best inconclusive.
The Claims Court also erred in concluding that ABE’s insurance program did not present the potential for unfair competition. The undisputed purpose of the unrelated business income tax was to prevent tax-exempt organizations from competing unfairly with businesses whose earnings were taxed. H. R. Rep. No. 2319, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 36 (1950); see United States v. American College of Physicians, 475 U. S., at 838. This case presents an example of precisely the sort of unfair competition that Congress intended to prevent. If ABE’s members may deduct part of their premium payments as a charitable contribution, the effective cost of ABE’s insurance will be lower than the cost of competing policies that do not offer tax benefits. Similarly, if ABE may escape taxes on its earnings, it need not be as profitable as its commercial counterparts in order to receive the same return on its investment. Should a commercial company attempt to displace ABE as the group policyholder, therefore, it would be at a decided disadvantage.
The Claims Court failed to find any taxable entities that compete with ABE, and therefore found no danger of unfair competition. It is likely, however, that many of ABE’s members belong to other organizations that offer group insurance policies. Employers, trade associations, and financial services companies frequently offer group insurance policies. Presumably those entities are taxed on their profits, and their policyholders may not deduct any part of the premiums paid. Such entities may therefore find it difficult to compete for the business of any ABE members who are otherwise eligible to participate in these group insurance programs.
The only valid argument in ABE’s favor, therefore, is that the insurance program is billed as a fundraising effort. That fact, standing alone, cannot be determinative, or any exempt organization could engage in a tax-free business by “giving away” its product in return for a “contribution” equal to the market value of the product. ABE further contends that it must prevail because the Claims Court found that ABE’s profits represent contributions rather than business income; ABE argues that we may not upset that finding unless it is clearly erroneous. Cf. Carter v. Commissioner, 645 F. 2d 784, 786 (CA9 1981) (question of profit motive for purposes of § 162 is one of fact). The undisputed facts, however, simply will not support the inference that the dividends ABE receives are charitable contributions from its members rather than profits from its insurance program. Moreover, the Claims Court failed to articulate a legal rule that would permit it to split ABE’s activities into the gratuitous provision of a service and the acceptance of voluntary contributions, and we find no such rule in the Code or regulations. Even if we assumed, however, that the court’s failure to attach the label “trade or business” to ABE’s insurance program constitutes a finding of fact, we would be constrained to hold that finding clearly erroneous.
Ill
Section 170 of the Code provides that a taxpayer may deduct from taxable income any “charitable contribution,” defined as “a contribution or gift to or for the use of” qualifying entities, § 170(c). The individual respondents contend that the excess of their premium payments over the cost to ABE of providing insurance constitutes a contribution or gift to ABE.
Many of the considerations supporting our holding that ABE’s earnings from the insurance program are taxable also bear on the question whether ABE’s members may deduct part of their premium payments. The evidence demonstrates, and the Claims Court found, that ABE’s insurance is no more costly to its members than other policies — group or individual — available to them. Thus, as we have recognized, ABE’s members are never faced with the hard choice of supporting a worthwhile charitable endeavor or reducing their own insurance costs.
A payment of money generally cannot constitute a charitable contribution if the contributor expects a substantial benefit in return. S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 196 (1954); Singer Co. v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 90, 449 F. 2d 413 (1971). However, as the Claims Court recognized, a taxpayer may sometimes receive only a nominal benefit in return for his contribution. Where the size of the payment is clearly out of proportion to the benefit received, it would not serve the purposes of § 170 to deny a deduction altogether. A taxpayer may therefore claim a deduction for the difference between a payment to a charitable organization and the market value of the benefit received in return, on the theory that the payment has the “dual character” of a purchase and a contribution. See, e. g., Rev. Rul. 67-246, 1967-2 Cum. Bull. 104 (price of ticket to charity ball deductible to extent it exceeds market value of admission); Rev. Rul. 68-432, 1968-2 Cum. Bull. 104, 105 (noting possibility that payment to charitable organization may have “dual character”).
In Rev. Rul. 67-246, supra, the IRS set up a two-part test for determining when part of a “dual payment” is deductible. First, the payment is deductible only if and to the extent it exceeds the market value of the benefit received. Second, the excess payment must be “made with the intention of making a gift.” 1967-2 Cum. Bull., at 105. The Tax Court has adopted this test, see Murphy v. Commissioner, 54 T. C. 249, 254 (1970); Arceneaux v. Commissioner, 36 TCM 1461, 1464 (1977); but see Oppewal v. Commissioner, 468 F. 2d 1000, 1002 (CA1 1972) (expressing “dissatisfaction with such subjective tests as the taxpayer’s motives in making a purported charitable contribution” and relying solely on differential between amount of payment and value of benefit).
The Claims Court applied that test in this case, and held that respondents Broadfoot, Boynton, and Turner had not established that they could have purchased comparable insurance for less money. Therefore, the court held, they had failed to establish that the value of ABE’s insurance to them was less than the premiums paid. 4 Cl. Ct., at 415-417. Respondent Sherwood demonstrated that there did exist a group insurance program for which he was eligible and which offered lower premiums than ABE’s insurance. However, Sherwood failed to establish that he was aware of that competing program during the years at issue. Sherwood therefore had failed to demonstrate that he met the second part of the above test — that he had intentionally paid more than the market value for ABE’s insurance because he wished to make a gift.
The Court of Appeals, in reversing, held that the Claims Court had focused excessively on the taxpayers’ motivation. In the Court of Appeals’ view, the necessary inquiry was whether “the transaction was ... of a business and not a charitable nature,” considering all of the circumstances. 761 F. 2d, at 1582. The Court of Appeals therefore remanded for redetermination under that standard.
We hold that the Claims Court applied the proper standard. The sine qua non of a charitable contribution is a transfer of money or property without adequate consideration. The taxpayer, therefore, must at a minimum demonstrate that he purposely contributed money or property in excess of the value of any benefit he received in return. The most logical test of the value of the insurance respondents received is the cost of similar policies. Three of the four individual respondents failed to demonstrate that they could have purchased similar policies for a lower cost, and we must therefore assume that the value of ABE’s insurance to those taxpayers at least equals their premium payments. Had respondent Sherwood known that he could purchase comparable insurance for less money, ABE’s insurance would necessarily have declined in value to him. Because Sherwood did not have that knowledge, however, we again must assume that he valued ABE’s insurance equivalently to those competing policies of which he was aware. Because those policies cost as much as or more than ABE’s, Sherwood has failed to demonstrate that he intentionally gave away more than he received.
> l — l
We hold that ABE’s insurance program is a “trade or business” for purposes of the unrelated business income tax. We further hold that the individual taxpayers have not established that any portion of their premium payments to ABE constitutes a charitable contribution. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to that court with instructions to reverse the judgment of the Claims Court with respect to ABE and to affirm the judgment of the Claims Court with respect to the individual taxpayers.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 162 permits a taxpayer to deduct “all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business.” Undoubtedly due to the desirability of tax deductions, § 162 has spawned a rich and voluminous jurisprudence. The standard test for the existence of a trade or business for purposes of § 162 is whether the activity “was entered into with the dominant hope and intent of realizing a profit.” Brannen v. Commissioner, 722 F. 2d 695, 704 (CA11 1984) (citation omitted). Thus several Courts of Appeals have adopted the “profit motive” test to determine whether an activity constitutes a trade or business for purposes of the unrelated business income tax. See Professional Insurance Agents of Michigan v. Commissioner, 726 F. 2d 1097 (CA6 1984); Carolinas Farm & Power Equipment Dealers v. United States, 699 F. 2d 167 (CA4 1983); Louisiana Credit Union League v. United States, 693 F. 2d 525 (CA5 1982).
One obvious consideration is that ABE’s tax-exempt status would make it difficult for private firms to compete, see infra, at 114-115. In addition, as the Claims Court recognized, 4 Cl. Ct. 404, 414 (1984), the provision of group insurance coverage to a particular group may have the characteristics of a natural monopoly. The potential savings in insurance costs might decrease rapidly as the group splits into competing components. Finally, if the cost of assembling information about a particular group and maintaining an accurate list of members is high, the provision of group insurance might be economically feasible only if that cost can be shared among a variety of services performed by the group policyholder. In that ease preexisting groups like the ABA or a trade association would obviously have a considerable advantage over new entrants. The record here is barren of facts concerning these hypotheses, and we express no opinion as to their accuracy. We present them, however, to demonstrate that it is incorrect to assume, as did the courts below, that ABE’s profitability must result from the generosity of its members.
The unrelated business income cases cited in n. 1, supra, all concerned group insurance programs offered by trade associations to their members. In each case the Court of Appeals held that those programs constituted a taxable trade or business. The Claims Court distinguished those cases on the grounds that they involved organizations exempt as business leagues under § 501(c)(6) rather than as charities under § 501(c)(3). That distinction, however, is insubstantial. Business leagues engage in fundraising for exempt purposes just as charities do. The taxpayers in those cases could have claimed that the excess dividends constituted tax-exempt membership fees, just as ABE claims that they constitute tax-exempt charitable contributions. Both claims fail for the same reasons.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents two questions of importance to the administration of the patent laws: First, whether this Court has certiorari jurisdiction, upon petition of the Commissioner of Patents, to review decisions of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals; and second, whether the practical utility of the compound produced by a chemical process is an essential element in establishing a prima facie case for the patentability of the process. The facts are as follows:
In December 1957, Howard Ringold and George Rosen-kranz applied for a patent on an allegedly novel process for making certain known steroids. They claimed priority as of December 17, 1956, the date on which they had filed for a Mexican patent. United States Patent No. 2,908,693 issued late in 1959.
In January 1960, respondent Manson, a chemist engaged in steroid research, filed an application to patent precisely the same process described by Ringold and Rosenkranz. He asserted that it was he who had discovered the process, and that he had done so before December 17, 1956. Accordingly, he requested that an “interference” be declared in order to try out the issue of priority between his claim and that of Ringold and Rosenkranz.
A Patent Office examiner denied Manson’S application, and the denial was affirmed by the Board of Appeals within the Patent Office. The ground for rejection was the failure “to disclose any utility for” the chemical compound produced by the process. Letter of Examiner, dated May 24, 1960. This omission was not cured, in the opinion of the Patent Office, by Manson’s reference to an article in the November 1956 issue of the Journal of Organic Chemistry, 21 J. Org. Chem. 1333-1335, which revealed that steroids of a class which included the compound in question were undergoing screening for possible tumor-inhibiting effects in mice, and that a homologue adjacent to Manson’s steroid had proven effective in that role. Said the Board of Appeals, “It is our view that the statutory requirement of usefulness of a product cannot be presumed merely because it happens to be closely related to another compound which is known to be useful.”
The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (hereinafter CCPA) reversed, Chief Judge Worley dissenting. 52 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 739, 745, 333 F. 2d 234, 237-238. The court held that Manson was entitled to a declaration of interference since “where a claimed process produces a known product it is not necessary to show utility for the product,” so long as the product “is not alleged to be detrimental to the public interest.” Certiorari was granted, 380 U. S. 971, to resolve this running dispute over what constitutes “utility” in chemical process claims, as well as to answer the question concerning our certiorari jurisdiction.
I.
Section 1256 of Title 28 U. S. C. (1964 ed.), enacted in 1948, provides that “Cases in the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari.” This unqualified language would seem to foreclose any challenge to our jurisdiction in the present case. Both the Government and the respondent urge that we have certiorari jurisdiction over patent decisions of the CCPA, although the latter would confine our jurisdiction to those petitions filed by dissatisfied applicants and would deny the Commissioner of Patents the right to seek certiorari. This concert of opinion, does not settle the basic question because jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties. The doubt that does exist stems from a decision of this Court, rendered in January 1927, in Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig Nut Co., 272 U. S. 693, which has been widely interpreted as precluding certiorari jurisdiction over patent and trademark decisions of the CCPA.
Postum, however, was based upon a statutory scheme materially different from the present one. Postum involved a proceeding in the Patent Office to cancel a trademark. The Commissioner of Patents rejected the application. An appeal was taken to the then Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which in 1927 exercised the jurisdiction later transferred to the CCPA. Under the statutory arrangement in effect at the time, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was not definitive because it was not an order to the Patent Office determinative of the controversy. A subsequent bill in equity could be brought in the District Court and it was possible that a conflicting adjudication could thus be obtained. On this basis, the Court held that it could not review the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the conclusion of the Court of Appeals was an “administrative decision” rather than a “judicial judgment”: “merely an instruction to the Commissioner of Patents by a court which is made part of the machinery of the Patent Office for administrative purposes.” 272 U. S., at 698-699. Therefore, this Court concluded, the proceeding in the Court of Appeals — essentially administrative in nature — was neither case nor controversy within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution. Congress might confer such “administrative” tasks upon the courts of the District of Columbia, wrote Chief Justice Taft, but it could not empower this Court to participate therein.
Congress soon amended the statutory scheme. In March of 1927 it provided that an action in the District Court was to be alternative and not cumulative to appellate review, that it could not be maintained to overcome
an adjudication in the Court of Appeals. In 1929 Congress transferred appellate jurisdiction over the Commissioner’s decisions from the Court of Appeals to what had been the Court of Customs Appeals and was now styled the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Whereas the Court of Appeals had been empowered to take additional evidence and to substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner, the CCPA was confined to the record made in the Patent Office. Compare Federal Communications Comm’n v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 144-145. Despite these changes, however, Postum had acquired a life of its own. It continued to stand in the way of attempts to secure review here of CCPA decisions respecting the Commissioner of Patents. See, e. g., McBride v. Teeple, 311 U. S. 649, denying certiorari for “want of jurisdiction” on the authority of Postum.
This was the background against which Congress, in its 1948 codification of statutes pertaining to the judiciary, enacted § 1256, blandly providing in unqualified language for review on certiorari of “[cjases in the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.” Nothing in the legislative materials relating to the statute, except its language, is of assistance to us in the resolution of the present problem: Did the statutory changes which followed Postura mean that a patent decision by the CCPA was a “judicial” determination reviewable by this Court under Article III? And, if so, was § 1256 intended to create such jurisdiction?
Assistance came with the 1958 revision of the Judicial Code. Congress there declared the CCPA “a court established under article III...,” that is, a constitutional court exercising judicial rather than administrative power. 28 U. S. C. § 211 (1964 ed.). In 1962 this Court addressed itself to the nature and status of the CCPA. Olidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U. S. 530, raised the question whether a judge of the CCPA was an Article III judge, capable of exercising federal judicial power. In answering that question in the affirmative, MR. Justice Harlan's opinion, for three of the seven Justices participating, expressly left open the question whether § 1256 conferred certiorari jurisdiction over patent and trademark cases decided in the CCPA, 370 U. S., at 578 n. 49. It suggested, however, that Postura might be nothing-more than a museum piece. The opinion noted that Postura “must be taken to be limited to the statutory scheme in existence before” 1929. 370 U. S., at 579. The concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Clark, in which The Chief Justice joined, did not reflect any difference on this point.
Thus, the decision sought to be reviewed is that of an Article III court. It is “judicial” in character. It is not merely an instruction to the Commissioner or part of the “administrative machinery” of the Patent Office. It is final and binding in the usual sense. In sum, Postura has no vitality in the present setting, and there remains no constitutional bar to our jurisdiction.
Having arrived at this conclusion, we have no difficulty in giving full force and effect to the generality of the language in § 1256. It would be entirely arbitrary for us to assume, despite the statutory language, that Congress in 1948 intended to enshrine Postum — dependent as it was upon a statutory scheme fundamentally altered in 1927 and 1929 — as a hidden exception to the sweep of § 1256. The contrary is more plausible: that by using broad and unqualified language, Congress intended our certiorari jurisdiction over CCPA cases to be as broad as the Constitution permits.
This conclusion is reinforced by reference to the anomalous consequences which would result were we to adopt a contrary view of § 1256. Determinations of the Patent Office may be challenged either by appeal to the CCPA or by suit instituted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 35 U. S. C. § 145, 28 U. S. C. § 1542 (1964 ed.). Where the latter route is elected, the decision obtained may be reviewed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and ultimately in this Court upon writ of certiorari. Hoover Co. v. Coe, 325 U. S. 79. It would be strange indeed if corresponding certiorari jurisdiction did not exist where the alternative route was elected. Were that so, in the event of conflict between the CCPA and the courts of the District of Columbia, resolution by this Court would be achievable only if the litigants chose to proceed through the latter. Obviously, the orderly administration both of our certiorari jurisdiction and of the patent laws requires that ultimate review be available in this Court, regardless of the route chosen by the litigants.
We therefore conclude that § 1256 authorizes the grant of certiorari in the present case. We now turn to the merits.
II.
Our starting point is the proposition, neither disputed nor disputable, that one may patent only that which is “useful.” In Graham v. John Deere Co., ante, p.' 1, at 5-10, we have reviewed the history of the requisites of patentability, and it need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that the concept of utility has maintained a central place in all of our patent legislation, beginning with the first patent law in 1790 and culminating in the present law’s provision that
“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.”
As is so often the case, however, a simple, everyday word can be pregnant with ambiguity when applied to the facts of life. That this is so is demonstrated by the present conflict between the Patent Office and the CCPA over how the test is to be applied to a chemical process which yields an already known product whose utility— other than as a possible object of scientific inquiry — has not yet been evidenced. It was not long ago that agency and court seemed of one mind on the question. In Application of Bremner, 37 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1032, 1034, 182 F. 2d 216, 217, the court affirmed rejection by the Patent Office of both process and product claims. It noted that “no use for the products claimed to be developed by the processes had been shown in the specification.” It held that “It was never intended that a patent be granted upon a product, or a process producing a product, unless such product be useful.” Nor was this new doctrine in the court. See Thomas v. Michael, 35 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1036, 1038-1039, 166 F. 2d 944, 946-947.
The Patent Office has remained steadfast in this view. The CCPA, however, has moved sharply away from Bremner. The trend began in Application of Nelson, 47 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1031, 280 F. 2d 172. There, the court reversed the Patent Office’s rejection of a claim on a process yielding chemical intermediates “useful to chemists doing research on steroids,” despite the absence of evidence that any of the steroids thus ultimately produced were themselves “useful.” The trend has accelerated, culminating in the present case where the court held it sufficient that a process produces the result intended and is not “detrimental to the public interest.” 52 C. C. P. A. (Pat.), at 745, 333 F. 2d, at 238.
It is not remarkable that differences arise as to how the test of usefulness is to be applied to chemical processes. Even if we knew precisely what Congress meant in 1790 when it devised the “new and useful” phraseology and in subsequent re-enactments of the test, we should have difficulty in applying it in the context of contemporary chemistry where research is as comprehensive as man’s grasp and where little or nothing is wholly beyond the pale of “utility” — if that word is given its broadest reach.
Respondent does not — -at least in the first instance— rest upon the extreme proposition, advanced by the court below, that a novel chemical process is patentable so long as it yields the intended product and so long as the product is not itself “detrimental.” Nor does he commit the outcome of his claim to the slightly more conventional proposition that any process is “useful” within the meaning of § 101 if it produces a compound whose potential usefulness is under investigation by serious scientific researchers, although he urges this position, too, as an alternative basis for affirming the decision of the CCPA. Rather, he begins with the much more orthodox argument that his process has a specific utility which would entitle him to a declaration of interference even under the Patent Office’s reading of § 101. The claim is that the supporting affidavits filed pursuant to Rule 204 (b), by reference to Ringold’s 1956 article, reveal that an adjacent homologue of the steroid yielded by his process has been demonstrated to have tumor-inhibiting effects in mice, and that this discloses the requisite utility. We do not accept any of these theories as an adequate basis for overriding the determination of the Patent Office that the “utility” requirement has not been met.
Even on the assumption that the process would be patentable were respondent to show that the steroid produced had a tumor-inhibiting effect in mice, we would not overrule the Patent Office finding that respondent has not made such a showing. The Patent Office held that, despite the reference to the adjacent homologue, respondent’s papers did not disclose a sufficient likelihood that the steroid yielded by his process would have similar tumor-inhibiting characteristics. Indeed, respondent himself recognized that the presumption that adjacent homologues have the same utility has been challenged in the steroid field because of “a greater known unpredictability of compounds in that field.” In these circumstances and in this technical area, we would not overturn the finding of the Primary Examiner, affirmed by the Board of Appeals and not challenged by the CCPA.
The second and third points of respondent’s argument present issues of much importance. Is a chemical process “useful” within the meaning of § 101 either (1) because it works — i. e., produces the intended product? or (2) because the compound yielded belongs to a class of compounds now the subject of serious scientific investigation? These contentions present the basic problem for our adjudication. Since we find no specific assistance in the legislative materials underlying § 101, we are remitted to an analysis of the problem in light of the general intent of Congress, the purposes of the patent system, and the implications of a decision one way or the other.
In support of his plea that we attenuate the requirement of “utility,” respondent relies upon Justice Story’s well-known statement that a “useful” invention is one “which may be applied to a beneficial use in society, in contradistinction to an invention injurious to the morals, health, or good order of society, or frivolous and insignificant” — and upon the assertion that to do so would encourage inventors of new processes to publicize the event for the benefit of the entire scientific community, thus widening the search for uses and increasing the fund of scientific knowledge. Justice Story’s language sheds little light on our subject. Narrowly read, it does no more than compel us to decide whether the invention in question is “frivolous and insignificant” — a query no easier of application than the one built into the statute. Read more broadly, so as to allow the patenting of any invention not positively harmful to society, it places such a special meaning on the word “useful” that we cannot accept it in the absence of evidence that Congress so intended. There are, after all, many things in this world which may not be considered “useful” but which, nevertheless, are totally without a capacity for harm.
It is true, of course, that one of the purposes of the patent system is to encourage dissemination of information concerning discoveries and inventions. And it may be that inability to patent a process to some extent discourages disclosure and leads to greater secrecy than would otherwise be the case. The inventor of the process, or the corporate organization by which he is employed, has some incentive to keep the invention secret while uses for the product are searched out. However, in light of the highly developed art of drafting patent claims so that they disclose as little useful information as possible — while broadening the scope of the claim as widely as possible — the argument based upon the virtue of disclosure must be warily evaluated. Moreover, the pressure for secrecy is easily exaggerated, for if the inventor of a process cannot himself ascertain a “use” for that which his process yields, he has every incentive to make his invention known to those able to do so. Finally, how likely is disclosure of a patented process to spur research by others into the uses to which the product may be put? To the extent that the patentee has power to enforce his patent, there is little incentive for others to undertake a search for uses.
Whatever weight is attached to the value of encouraging disclosure and of inhibiting secrecy, we believe a more compelling consideration is that a process patent in the chemical field, which has not been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of knowledge which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute. Until the process claim has been reduced to production of a product shown to be useful, the metes and bounds of that monopoly are not capable of precise delineation. It may engross a vast, unknown, and perhaps unknowable area. Such a patent may confer power to block off whole areas of scientific development, without compensating benefit to the public. The basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point — where specific benefit exists in currently available form — there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.
These arguments for and against the patentability of a process which either has no known use or is useful only in the sense that it may be an object of scientific research would apply equally to the patenting of the product produced by the process. Respondent appears to concede that with respect to a product, as opposed to a process, Congress has struck the balance on the side of non-patentability unless “utility” is shown. Indeed, the decisions of the CCPA are in accord with the view that a product may not be patented absent a showing of utility greater than any adduced in the present case. We find absolutely no warrant for the proposition that although Congress intended that no patent be granted on a chemical compound whose sole “'utility” consists of its potential role as an object of use-testing, a different set of rules was meant to apply to the process which yielded the unpatentable product. That proposition seems to us little more than an attempt to evade the impact of the rules which concededly govern patentability of the product itself.
This is not to say that we mean to disparage the importance of contributions to the fund of scientific information short of the invention of something “useful,” or that we are blind to the prospect that what now seems without “use” may tomorrow command the grateful attention of the public. But a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion. “[A] patent system must be related to the world of commerce rather than to the realm of philosophy....”
The judgment of the CCPA is Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas, while acquiescing in Part I of the Court’s opinion, dissents on the merits of the controversy for substantially the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Harlan.
The applicants described the products of their process as “2-methyl dihydrotestosterone derivatives and esters thereof as well as 2-methyl dihydrotestosterone derivatives having a C-17 lower alkyl group. The products of the process of the present invention have a useful high anabolic-androgenic ratio and are especially valuable for treatment of those ailments where anabolic or antiestro-genic effect together with a lesser androgenic effect is desired.”
35 U. S. C. § 135 (1964 ed.) provides: “Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the Commissioner, would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, he shall give notice thereof.... The question of priority of invention shall be determined by a board of patent interferences... whose decision, if adverse to the claim of an applicant, shall constitute the final refusal by the Patent Office of the claims involved, and the Commissioner may issue a patent to the applicant who is adjudged the prior inventor....”
Patent Office Rule 204 (b), 37 CFR § 1.204 (b), provides: “When the filing date or effective filing date of an applicant is subsequent to the filing date of a patentee, the applicant, before an interference will be declared, shall file an affidavit that he made the invention in controversy in this country, before the filing date of the pat-entee... and, when required, the applicant shall file an affidavit... setting forth facts which would prima facie entitle him to an award of priority relative to the filing date of the patentee.”
Judge Thurman Arnold has provided an irreverent description of the way patent claims, including “interferences,” are presented to the Patent Office. See Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Coe, 79 U. S. App. D. C. 155, 145 F. 2d 18.
“A homologous series is a family of chemically related compounds, the composition of which varies from member to member by CH2 (one atom of carbon and two atoms of hydrogen).... Chemists knowing the properties of one member of a series would in general know what to expect in adjacent members.” Application of Henze, 37 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1009, 1014, 181 F. 2d 196, 200-201. See also In re Hass, 31 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 895, 901, 141 F. 2d 122, 125; Application of Norris, 37 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 876, 179 F. 2d 970; Application of Jones, 32 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1020, 149 F. 2d 501. With respect to the inferior predictability of steroid homologues, see, infra, p. 532.
In addition to the clear conflict between the Patent Office and the CCPA, there arguably exists one between the CCPA and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Petrocarbon Limited v. Watson, 101 U. S. App. D. C. 214, 247 F. 2d 800, cert. denied, 355 U. S. 955. But see Application of Szwarc, 50 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1571, 1576-1583, 319 F. 2d 277, 281-286.
The present case is the first in which the Government has taken the position that § 1256 confers jurisdiction upon this Court to review patent decisions in the CCPA. Prior to Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U. S. 530, the Government was of the view that the Court lacked jurisdiction. See, e. g., the Brief in Opposition in Dalton v. Marzall, No. 87, O. T. 1951, cert. denied, 342 U. S. 818. After the decision in Glidden, discussed infra, at 526, the Government conceded the issue was a close one. See, e. g., Brief in Opposition in In re Gruschwitz, No. 579, O. T. 1963, cert. denied, 375 U. S. 967.
We find no warrant for this curious limitation either in the statutory language or in the legislative history of § 1256. Nor do we find persuasive the circumstance that the Commissioner may not appeal adverse decisions of the Board of Appeals. 35 U. S. C. §§141, 142, and 145 (1964 ed.). As a member of the Board and the official responsible for selecting the membership of its panels, 35 U. S. C. §7 (1964 ed.), the Commissioner may be appropriately considered as bound by Board determinations. No such consideration operates to prevent his seeking review of adverse decisions rendered by the CCPA.
Act of March 2, 1927, c. 273, §11, 44 Stat. 1335, 1336. See Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, supra, at 572-579; Kurland & Wolfson, Supreme Court Review of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 18 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 192 (1950). This remains the law. 35 U. S. C. §§ 141, 145.
Act of March 2, 1929, c. 488, 45 Stat. 1475.
See Kurland & Wolfson, op. cit. supra, n. 7, at 196.
Apart from Postum, until enactment of § 1256 in 1948 there existed no statutory basis for jurisdiction in these eases. See Robertson & Kirkham, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of'the United States, §251 (Wolfson & Kurland ed. 1951).
This is not to say that a CCPA determination that an applicant is entitled to a patent precludes a contrary result in a subsequent infringement suit, any more than issuance of a patent by the Patent Office or the decision in an earlier infringement action against a different “infringer” has that effect. See, e. g., Graham v. John Deere Co., ante, p. 1, at 4. We review decisions of the District Court under 35 U. S. C. § 145 although these are subject to the same measure of readjudication in infringement suits. See Hoover Co. v. Coe, 325 U. S. 79.
Respondent and the amicus curiae take a different view than does the Government of precisely what the issue on the merits is. They argue that the issue of “patentability” is not properly before us, that the issue actually presented is whether the Primary Examiner in the Patent Office has authority under Rule 204 (b) himself to evaluate the sufficiency of affidavits submitted under that Rule.
Both the Board of Appeals and the CCPA rejected this view and focused instead on the question of what averments satisfy the statutory requirement that a claimed chemical process be “useful.” We agree. First, the issue of “patentability” cannot be foreclosed by the circumstance that the Patent Office — which, according to counsel for respondent, processes some 1,800 claims and issues 700 patents each week — has already issued a patent to Ringold and Rosenkranz who asserted in their claim that their process yielded useful products. See note 1, supra. Second, there is no basis for the proposition that even where an applicant for an interference presents a claim which on its face is unpatentable, a complicated and frequently lengthy factual inquiry into priority of invention must 'inexorably take place. On the contrary, Rule 201 (a), 37 CFR § 1.201 (a), defines an interference proceeding as one involving “two or more parties claiming substantially the same patentable invention and may be instituted as soon as it is determined that common patentable subject matter is claimed....” (Emphasis supplied.) See Application of Rogoff, 46 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 733, 739, 261 F. 2d 601, 606: “The question as to patentability of claims to an applicant must be determined before any question of interference arises and claims otherwise unpatentable to an applicant cannot be allowed merely in order to set up an interference.” See also Wirkler v. Perkins, 44 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1005, 1008, 245 F. 2d 502, 504. Cf. Glass v. De Roo, 44 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 723, 239 F. 2d 402.
The current version of Rule 203 (a), 37 CFR § 1.203 (a), makes it explicit that the examiner, “[bjefore the declaration of interference,” must determine the patentability of the claim as to each party. See also Rule 237, 37 CFR § 1.237.
See Act of April 10, 1790, c. 7, 1 Stat. 109; Act of Feb. 21, 1793, e. 11, 1 Stat. 318; Act of July 4, 1836, c. 357, 5 Stat. 117; Act of July 8, 1870, c. 230, 16 Stat. 198; Rev. Stat. §4886 (1874).
35 U. S. C. § 101 (1964 ed.).
Thus, in Application of Wilke, 50 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 964, 314 F. 2d 558, the court reversed a Patent Office denial of a process claim, holding that 35 U. S. C. § 112 (1964 ed.) was satisfied even though the specification recited only the manner in which the process was to be used and not any use for the products thereby yielded. See also Application of Adams, 50 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1185, 316 F. 2d 476.
In Application of Szwarc, 50 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1571, 319 F. 2d 277, the court acknowledged that its view of the law respecting utility of chemical processes had changed since Bremner. See generally, Note, The Utility Requirement in the Patent Law, 53 Geo. L. J. 154, 175-181 (1964).
Respondent couches the issue in terms of whether the process yields a “known” product. We fail to see the relevance of the fact that the product is “known,” save to the extent that references to a compound in scientific literature suggest that it might be a subject of interest and possible investigation.
In light of our disposition of the case, we express no view as to the patentability of a process whose sole demonstrated utility is to yield a product shown to inhibit the growth of tumors in laboratory animals. See Application of Hitchings, 52 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1141, 342 F. 2d 80; Application of Bergel, 48 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1102, 292 F. 2d 955; cf. Application of Dodson, 48 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1125, 292 F. 2d 943; Application of Krimmel, 48 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1116, 292 F. 2d 948. For a Patent Office view, see Marcus, The Patent Office and Pharmaceutical Invention, 47 J. Pat. Off. Soc. 669, 673-676 (1965).
See n. 3, supra.
See respondent’s letter requesting amendment, dated July 21, 1960, Record, pp. 20-23. See also Application of Adams, 50 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1185, 1190, 316 F. 2d 476, 479-480 (concurring-dissenting opinion). In the present case, the Board of Appeals found support in the Ringold article itself for the view that “minor changes in the structure of a steroid may produce profound changes in its biological activity.” Record, p. 52.
Note on the Patent Laws, 3 Wheat. App. 13, 24. See also Justice Story’s decisions on circuit in Lowell v. Lewis, 15 Fed. Cas. 1018 (No. 8568) (C. C. D. Mass.), and Bedford v. Hunt, 3 Fed. Cas. 37 (No. 1217) (C. C. D. Mass.).
“As a reward for inventions and to encourage their disclosure, the United States offers a seventeen-year monopoly to an inventor who refrains from keeping his invention a trade secret.” Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Globe Oil & Ref. Co., 322 U. S. 471, 484.
See Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Coe, 79 U. S. App. D. C. 155, 158-161, 145 F. 2d 18, 21-24.
See, e. g., the decision below, 52 C. C. P. A. (Pat.), at 744, 333 F. 2d, at 237. See also Application of Bergel, 48 C. C. P. A. (Pat.), at 1105, 292 F. 2d, at 958. Cf. Application of Nelson, 47 C. C. P. A. (Pat.), at 1043-1044, 280 F. 2d, at 180-181; Application of Folkers, 52 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1269, 344 F. 2d 970.
The committee reports which preceded enactment of the 1952 revision of the patent laws disclose no intention to create such a dichotomy, and in fact provide some evidence that the contrary was assumed. Sen. Rep. No. 1979, Committee on the Judiciary, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether a complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is automatically frivolous within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1915(d). The answer, we hold, is no.
I
On October 27, 1986, respondent Harry Williams, Sr., an inmate in the custody of the Indiana Department of Corrections, filed a complaint under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, naming five Indiana correctional officials as defendants. App. 38. The complaint alleged that, while at the Indiana State Prison, Williams had been diagnosed by a prison doctor as having a small brain tumor which affected his equilibrium. Id., at 40. Because of this condition, the doctor placed Williams for one year on “medical idle status.” A medical report Williams attached to the complaint stated that “[i]t is very likely that he will have this condition for some time to come.” Id., at 48.
The complaint further alleged that, when Williams was transferred to the Indiana State Reformatory, he notified the reformatory staff about the tumor and about the doctor’s recommendation that he not participate in any prison work program. Id., at 41. Despite this notification, reformatory doctors refused to treat the tumor, id., at 40-41, and reformatory officials assigned Williams to do garment manufacturing work, id., at 42. After Williams’ equilibrium problems worsened and he refused to continue working, the reformatory disciplinary board responded by transferring him to a less desirable cell house. Id., at 42-43.
The complaint charged that by denying medical treatment, the reformatory officials had violated Williams’ rights under the Eighth Amendment, and by transferring him without a hearing, they had violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at 44. The complaint sought money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Id., at 45-46. Along with the complaint, Williams filed a motion to proceed informa pauperis pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1915(a), stating that he had no assets and only prison income. App. 36-37.
The District Court dismissed the complaint sua sponte as frivolous under 28 U. S. C. § 1915(d) on the grounds that Williams had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Insofar as Williams claimed deficient medical care, his pleadings did not state a claim of “deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical needs,” as prisoners’ Eighth Amendment claims must under Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 104 (1976), but instead described a constitutionally noncognizable instance of medical malpractice. Williams v. Faulkner, Cause No. IP 86-1307-C (SD Ind., Jan. 16, 1987), reprinted at App. 67. Insofar as Williams protested his transfer without a hearing, his pleadings failed to state a due process violation, for a prisoner has no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in being incarcerated in a particular institution or a particular wing. Id., at 26. The court gave no other reasons for finding the complaint frivolous. On Williams’ ensuing motion to vacate the judgment and amend his pleadings, the District Court reached these same conclusions. Williams v. Faulkner, Cause No. IP 86-1307-C (SD Ind., Mar. 11, 1987), reprinted at App. 29.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. Williams v. Faulkner, 837 F. 2d 304 (1988). In its view, the District Court had wrongly equated the standard for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) with the standard for frivolousness under § 1915(d). The frivolousness standard, authorizing sua sponte dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint “only if the petitioner cannot make any rational argument in law or fact which would entitle him or her to relief,” is a “more lenient” standard than that of Rule 12(b)(6), the court stated. 837 F. 2d, at 307. Unless there is “‘indisputably absent any factual or legal basis’” for the wrong asserted in the complaint, the trial court, “[i]n a close case,” should permit the claim to proceed at least to the point where responsive pleadings are required. Ibid, (citation omitted).
Evaluated under this frivolousness standard, the Court of Appeals held, Williams’ Eighth Amendment claims against two of the defendants had been wrongly dismissed. Although the complaint failed to allege the level of deliberate indifference necessary to survive a motion to' dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), at this stage of the proceedings, the court stated, “we cannot state with certainty that Williams is unable to make any rational argument in law or fact to support his claim for relief” against these defendants. 837 F. 2d, at 308. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded these claims to the District Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Williams’ due process claims as frivolous, however. Because the law is clear that prisoners have no constitutionally protected liberty interest in remaining in a particular wing of a prison, the court stated, Williams could make no rational argument in law or fact that his transfer violated due process. Id., at 308-309.
We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, 488 U. S. 816 (1988), filed by those defendants against whom Williams’ claims still stand to decide whether a complaint that fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is necessarily frivolous within the meaning of § 1915(d), a question over which the Courts of Appeals have disagreed. We now affirm.
I — H HH
The federal informa pauperis statute, enacted in 1892 and presently codified as 28 U. S. C. § 1915, is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts. Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U. S. 331, 342-343 (1948). Toward this end, § 1915(a) allows a litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in federal court in forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, inter alia, that he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. Congress recognized, however, that a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. To prevent such abusive or captious litigation, § 1915(d) authorizes federal courts to dismiss a claim filed informa pauperis “if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.” Dismissals on these grounds are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F. 2d 1221, 1226 (CA9 1984).
The brevity of § 1915(d) and the generality of its terms have left the judiciary with the not inconsiderable tasks of fashioning the procedures by which the statute operates and of giving content to § 1915(d)’s indefinite adjectives. Articulating the proper contours of the § 1915(d) term “frivolous,” which neither the statute nor the accompanying congressional reports defines, presents one such task. The Courts of Appeals have, quite correctly in our view, generally adopted as formulae for evaluating frivolousness under § 1915(d) close variants of the definition of legal frivolousness which we articulated in the Sixth Amendment case of Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967). There, we stated that an appeal on a matter of law is frivolous where “[none] of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits.” Id., at 744. By logical extension, a complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. As the Courts of Appeals have recognized, § 1915(d)’s term “frivolous,” when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.
Where the appellate courts have diverged, however, is on the question whether a complaint which fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) automatically satisfies this frivolousness standard. The petitioning prison officials urge us to adopt such a per se reading, primarily on the policy ground that such a reading will halt the “flood of frivolous litigation” generated by prisoners that has swept over the federal judiciary. Brief for Petitioners 7. In support of this position, petitioners note the large and growing number of prisoner civil rights complaints, the burden which disposing of meritless complaints imposes on efficient judicial administration, and the need to discourage prisoners from filing frivolous complaints as a means of gaining a “‘short sabbatical in the nearest federal courthouse.’” Id., at 6, quoting Cruz v. Beto, 405 U. S. 319, 327 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). Because a complaint which states no claim “must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) anyway,” petitioners assert, “delaying] this determination until after service of process and a defendant’s response only delays the inevitable.” Reply Brief for Petitioners 3.
We recognize the problems in judicial administration caused by the surfeit of meritless in forma pauperis complaints in the federal courts, not the least of which is the possibility that meritorious complaints will receive inadequate attention or be difficult to identify amidst the overwhelming number of meritless complaints. See Turner, When Prisoners Sue: A Study of Prisoner Section 1983 Suits in the Federal Courts, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 610, 611 (1979). Nevertheless, our role in appraising petitioners’ reading of § 1915(d) is not to make policy, but to interpret a statute. Taking this approach, it is evident that the failure-to-state-a-claim standard of Rule 12(b)(6) and the frivolousness standard of § 1915(d) were devised to serve distinctive goals, and that while the overlap between these two standards is considerable, it does not follow that a complaint which falls afoul of the former standard will invariably fall afoul of the latter. Appealing though petitioners’ proposal may appear as a broadbrush means of pruning meritless complaints from the federal docket, as a matter of statutory construction it is untenable.
Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69, 73 (1984); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957). This procedure, operating on the assumption that the factual allegations in the complaint are true, streamlines litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and factfinding. Nothing in Rule 12(b)(6) confines its sweep to claims of law which are obviously insupportable. On the contrary, if as a matter of law “it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations,” Hishon, supra, at 73, a claim must be dismissed, without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one. What Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance are dismissals based on a judge’s disbelief of a complaint’s factual allegations. District court judges looking to dismiss claims on such grounds must look elsewhere for legal support.
Section 1915(d) has a separate function, one which molds rather differently the power to dismiss which it confers. Section 1915(d) is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit and because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. To this end, the statute accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Examples of the former class are claims against which it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit, see, e. g., Williams v. Goldsmith, 701 F. 2d 603 (CA7 1983), and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist, like respondent Williams’ claim that his transfer within the reformatory violated his rights under the Due Process Clause. Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.
To the extent that a complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim lacks even an arguable basis in law, Rule 12(b)(6) and § 1915(d) both counsel dismissal. But the considerable common ground between these standards does not mean that the one invariably encompasses the other. When a complaint raises an arguable question of law which the district court ultimately finds is correctly resolved against the plaintiff, dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds is appropriate, but dismissal on the basis of frivolousness is not. This conclusion follows naturally from § 1915(d)’s role of replicating the function of screening out inarguable claims which is played in the realm of paid cases by financial considerations. The cost of bringing suit and the fear of financial sanctions doubtless deter most inarguable paid claims, but such deterrence presumably screens out far less frequently those arguably meritorious legal theories whose ultimate failure is not apparent at the outset.
Close questions of federal law, including claims filed pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983, have on a number of occasions arisen on motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and have been substantial enough to warrant this Court’s granting review, under its certiorari jurisdiction, to resolve them. See, e. g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97 (1976); McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U. S. 273 (1976); Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971); Jones v. Alfred Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409 (1968). It can hardly be said that the substantial legal claims raised in these cases were so defective that they should never have been brought at the outset. To term these claims frivolous is to distort measurably the meaning of frivolousness both in common and legal parlance. Indeed, we recently reviewed the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of a complaint based on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and found by a 9-to-0 vote that it had, in fact, stated a cognizable claim — a powerful illustration that a finding of a failure to state a claim does not invariably mean that the claim is without arguable merit. See Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U. S. 593 (1989). That frivolousness in the § 1915(d) context refers to a more limited set of claims than does Rule 12(b)(6) accords, moreover, with the understanding articulated in other areas of law that not all unsuccessful claims are frivolous. See, e. g., Penson v. Ohio, 488 U. S. 75 (1988) (criminal defendant has right to appellate counsel even if his claims are ultimately unavailing so long as they are not frivolous); Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 422 (1978) (attorney’s fees may not be assessed against a plaintiff who fails to state a claim under 42 U. S. C. § 1988 or under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unless his complaint is frivolous); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 536-537 (1974) (complaint that fails to state a claim may not be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction unless it is frivolous).
Our conclusion today is consonant with Congress’ overarching goal in enacting the in forma pauperis statute: “to assure equality of consideration for all litigants.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U. S. 438, 447 (1962); see also H. R. Rep. No. 1079, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1892). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff with an arguable claim is ordinarily accorded notice of a pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and an opportunity to amend the complaint before the motion is ruled upon. These procedures alert him to the legal theory underlying the defendant’s challenge, and enable him meaningfully to respond by opposing the motion to dismiss on legal grounds or by clarifying his factual allegations so as to conform with the requirements of a valid legal cause of action. This adversarial process also crystallizes the pertinent issues and facilitates appellate review of a trial court dismissal by creating a more complete record of the case. Brandon v. District of Columbia Board of Parole, 236 U. S. App. D. C. 155, 158, 734 F. 2d 56, 59 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1127 (1985). By contrast, the sua sponte dismissals permitted by, and frequently employed under, § 1915(d), necessary though they may sometimes be to shield defendants from vexatious lawsuits, involve no such procedural protections.
To conflate the standards of frivolousness and failure to state a claim, as petitioners urge, would thus deny indigent plaintiffs the practical protections against unwarranted dismissal generally accorded paying plaintiffs under the Federal Rules. A complaint like that filed by Williams under the Eighth Amendment, whose only defect was its failure to state a claim, will in all likelihood be dismissed sua sponte, whereas an identical complaint filed by a paying plaintiff will in all likelihood receive the considerable benefits of the adversary proceedings contemplated by the Federal Rules. Given Congress’ goal of putting indigent plaintiffs on a similar footing with paying plaintiffs, petitioners’ interpretation cannot reasonably be sustained. According opportunities for responsive pleadings to indigent litigants commensurate to the opportunities accorded similarly situated paying plaintiffs is all the more important because indigent plaintiffs so often proceed pro se and therefore may be less capable of formulating legally competent initial pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519, 520 (1972).
We therefore hold that a complaint filed informa pauperis is not automatically frivolous within the meaning of § 1915(d) because it fails to state a claim. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Affirmed,
Both in its initial ruling and upon the motion to vacate and amend, the District Court also denied Williams leave to proceed informa pauperis. It based this denial exclusively on its finding of frivolousness, stating that Williams had presumptively satisfied § 1915’s poverty requirement. Williams v. Faulkner, Cause No. IP 86-1307-C (SD Ind., Jan. 16, 1987), reprinted at App. 22. In so ruling, the District Court adhered to precedent in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to the effect that, if a district court finds a complaint frivolous or malicious, it should not only dismiss the complaint but also retroactively deny the accompanying motion to proceed informa pauperis under § 1915, regardless of the plaintiff’s financial status. See Wartman v. Branch 7, Civil Division, County Court, Milwaukee County, Wis., 510 F. 2d 130, 134 (1975). Other Circuits, however, treat the decision whether to grant leave to file in forma pauperis as a threshold inquiry based exclusively on the movant’s poverty. See, e. g., Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F. 2d 1221, 1226-1227, n. 5 (CA9 1984); Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F. 2d 948, 950-951 (CA4 1979). Because our review is confined to the question whether the complaint in this case is frivolous within the meaning of § 1915(d), we have no occasion to consider the propriety of these varying applications of the statute.
The two defendants against whom the Eighth Amendment claims were reinstated were Han Chul Choi, a reformatory doctor whom Williams alleged had refused to treat the brain tumor, and Dean Neitzke, who as administrator of the reformatory infirmary was presumptively responsible for ensuring that Williams received adequate medical care. Williams v. Faulkner, 837 F. 2d 304, 308 (CA7 1988). The Court of Appeals held that Williams’ complaint had alleged no personal involvement on the part of the remaining three defendants in his medical treatment, and that these defendants’ prison jobs did not justify an “inference of personal involvement in the alleged deprivation of medical care.” Ibid. Because Williams could thus make no rational argument to support his claims for relief against these officials, the Court of Appeals stated, the District Court had appropriately dismissed those claims as frivolous. Ibid.
Compare Brandon v. District of Columbia Board of Parole, 236 U. S. App. D. C. 155, 159, 734 F. 2d 56, 59 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1127 (1985), with Harris v. Menendez, 817 F. 2d 737, 740 (CA11 1987); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F. 2d 179, 182 (CA5 1985); Franklin, supra, at 1227; Malone v. Colyer, 710 F. 2d 258, 261 (CA6 1983).
See, e. g., Catz & Guyer, Federal In Forma Pauperis Litigation: In Search of Judicial Standards, 31 Rutgers L. Rev. 655 (1978); Feldman, Indigents in the Federal Courts: The In Forma Pauperis Statute — Equality and Frivolity, 54 Ford. L. Rev. 413 (1985).
See, e. g., Payne v. Lynaugh, 843 F. 2d 177, 178 (CA5 1988); Franklin, 745 F. 2d, at 1227-1228; Johnson v. Silvers, 742 F. 2d 823, 824 (CA4 1984); Brandon, supra, at 159, 734 F. 2d, at 59; Wiggins v. New Mexico State Supreme Court Clerk, 664 F. 2d 812, 815 (CA10 1981), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 840 (1982).
A patently insubstantial complaint may be dismissed, for example, for want of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See, e. g., Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 536-537 (1974) (federal courts lack power to entertain claims that are “ ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit’ ”) (citation omitted); Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 682-683 (1946).
At argument, Williams’ counsel estimated that many, if not most, prisoner complaints which fail to state a claim also fall afoul of § 1915’s strictures, Tr. of Oral Arg. 27, an estimate with which our experience does not incline us to take issue.
We have no occasion to pass judgment, however, on the permissible scope, if any, of sua sponte dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6).
Petitioners’ related suggestion that, as a practical matter, the liberal pleading standard applied to pro se plaintiffs under Haines provides ample protection misses the mark for two reasons. First, it is possible for a plaintiff to file in forma pauperis while represented by counsel. See, e. g., Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U. S. 331 (1948). Second, the liberal pleading standard of Haines applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations. Responsive pleadings thus may be necessary for a pro se plaintiff to clarify his legal theories.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the State’s failure to keep a commitment concerning the sentence recommendation on a guilty plea required a new trial.
The facts are not in dispute. The State of New York indicted petitioner in 1969 on two felony counts, Promoting Gambling in the First Degree, and Possession of Gambling Records in the First Degree, N. Y. Penal Law §§ 225.10, 225.20. Petitioner first entered a plea of not guilty to both counts. After negotiations, the Assistant District Attorney in charge of the case agreed to permit petitioner to plead guilty to a lesser-included offense, Possession of Gambling Records in the Second Degree, N. Y. Penal Law § 225.15, conviction of which would carry a maximum prison sentence of one year. The prosecutor agreed to make no recommendation as to the sentence.
On June 16, 1969, petitioner accordingly withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the lesser charge. Petitioner represented to the sentencing judge that the plea was voluntary and that the facts of the case, as described by the Assistant District Attorney, were true. The court accepted the plea and set a date for sentencing. A series of delays followed, owing primarily to the absence of a pre-sentence report, so that by September 23, 1969, petitioner had still not been sentenced. By that date petitioner acquired new defense counsel.
Petitioner's new counsel moved immediately to withdraw the guilty plea. In an accompanying affidavit, petitioner alleged that he did not know at the time of his plea that crucial evidence against him had been obtained as a result of an illegal search. The accuracy of this affidavit is subject to challenge since petitioner had filed and withdrawn a motion to suppress, before pleading guilty. In addition to his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, petitioner renewed the motion to suppress and filed a motion to inspect the grand jury minutes.
These three motions in turn caused further delay until November 26, 1969, when the court denied all three and set January 9, 1970, as the date for sentencing. On January 9 petitioner appeared before a different judge, the judge who had presided over the case to this juncture having retired. Petitioner renewed his motions, and the court again rejected them. The court then turned to consideration of the sentence.
At this appearance, another prosecutor had replaced the prosecutor who had negotiated the plea. The new prosecutor recommended the maximum one-year sentence. In making this recommendation, he cited petitioner’s criminal record and alleged links with organized crime. Defense counsel immediately objected on the ground that the State had promised petitioner before the plea was entered that there would be no sentence recommendation by the prosecution. He sought to adjourn the sentence hearing in order to have time to prepare proof of the first prosecutor’s promise. The second prosecutor, apparently ignorant of his colleague’s commitment, argued that there was nothing in the record to support petitioner’s claim of a promise, but the State, in subsequent proceedings, has not contested that such a promise was made.
The sentencing judge ended discussion, with the following statement, quoting extensively from the pre-sentence report:
“Mr. Aronstein [Defense Counsel], I am not at all influenced by what the District Attorney says, so that there is no need to adjourn the sentence, and there is no need to have any testimony. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what the District Attorney says he will do, or what he doesn’t do.
“I have here, Mr. Aronstein, a probation report. I have here a history of a long, long serious criminal record. I have here a picture of the life history of this man. . . .
“ ‘He is unamenable to supervision in the community. He is a professional criminal.’ This is in quotes. ‘And a recidivist. Institutionalization — ’; that means, in plain language, just putting him away, ‘is the only means of halting his anti-social activities/ and protecting you, your family, me, my family, protecting society. ‘Institutionalization.’ Plain language, put him behind bars.
“Under the plea, I can only send him to the New York City Correctional Institution for men for one year, which I am hereby doing.”
The judge then imposed the maximum sentence of one year.
Petitioner sought and obtained a certificate of reasonable doubt and was admitted to bail pending an appeal. The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed petitioner’s conviction, 35 App. Div. 2d 1084, 316 N. Y. S. 2d 194 (1970), and petitioner was denied leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. Petitioner then sought certiorari in this Court. Mr. Justice Harlan granted bail pending our disposition of the case.
This record represents another example of an unfortunate lapse in orderly prosecutorial procedures, in part, no doubt, because of the enormous increase in the workload of the often understaffed prosecutor’s offices. The heavy workload may well explain these episodes, but it does not excuse them. The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes loosely called “plea bargaining,” is an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged. If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the States and the Federal Government would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities.
Disposition of charges after plea discussions is not only an essential part of the process but a highly desirable part for many reasons. It leads to prompt and largely final disposition of most criminal cases; it avoids much of the corrosive impact of enforced idleness during pretrial confinement for those who are denied release pending trial; it protects the public from those accused persons who are prone to continue criminal conduct even while on pretrial release; and, by shortening the time between charge and disposition, it enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they are ultimately imprisoned. See Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 751-752 (1970).
However, all of these considerations presuppose fairness in securing agreement between an accused and a prosecutor. It is now clear, for example, that the accused pleading guilty must be counseled, absent a waiver. Moore v. Michigan, 355 U. S. 155 (1957). Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11, governing pleas in federal courts, now makes clear that the sentencing judge must develop, on the record, the factual basis for the plea, as, for example, by having the accused describe the conduct that gave rise to the charge. The plea must, of course, be voluntary and knowing and if it was induced by promises, the essence of those promises must in some way be made known. There is, of course, no absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted. Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U. S. 705, 719 (1962); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11. A court may reject a plea in exercise of sound judicial discretion.
This phase of the process of criminal justice, and the adjudicative element inherent in accepting a plea of guilty, must be attended by safeguards to insure the defendant what is reasonably due in the circumstances. Those circumstances will vary, but a constant factor is that when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.
On this record, petitioner “bargained” and negotiated for a particular plea in order to secure dismissal of more serious charges, but also on condition that no sentence recommendation would be made by the prosecutor. It is now conceded that the promise to abstain from a recommendation was made, and at this stage the prosecution is not in a good position to argue that its inadvertent breach of agreement is immaterial. The staff lawyers in a prosecutor's office have the burden of “letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing” or has done. That the breach of agreement was inadvertent does not lessen its impact.
We need not reach the question whether the sentencing judge would or would not have been influenced had he known all the details of the negotiations for the plea. He stated that the prosecutor's recommendation did not influence him and we have no reason to doubt that. Nevertheless, we conclude that the interests of justice and appropriate recognition of the duties of the prosecution in relation to promises made in the negotiation of pleas of guilty will be best served by remanding the case to the state courts for further consideration. The ultimate relief to which petitioner is entitled we leave to the discretion of the state court, which is in a better position to decide whether the circumstances of this case require only that there be specific performance of the agreement on the plea, in which case petitioner should be resentenced by a different judge, or whether, in the view of the state court, the circumstances require granting the relief sought by petitioner, i. e., the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty. We emphasize that this is in no sense to question the fairness of the sentencing judge; the fault here rests on the prosecutor, not on the sentencing judge.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration not inconsistent with this opinion.
Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11 provides:
“A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept such plea or a plea of nolo contendere without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. If a defendant refuses to plead or if the court refuses to accept a plea of guilty or if a defendant corporation fails to appear, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty. The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.”
If the state court decides to allow withdrawal of the plea, the petitioner will, of course, plead anew to the original charge on two felony counts.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case arose from a fatal driveby shooting into a group of students standing in front of a Seattle high school. Brian Ronquillo was ultimately identified as the gunman; at the time of the shooting, he was a passenger in a ear driven by respondent Cesar Sarausad II. A jury convicted Sarausad as an accomplice to second-degree murder, attempted murder, and assault; he was sentenced to just over 27 years of imprisonment. The Washington courts affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct review, and his state-court motions for posteonviction relief were denied.
Respondent, then, filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The District Court granted the writ. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court that the state-court decision was an objectively “unreasonable application of . . . clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). The Court of Appeals found it unreasonable for the state court to reject Sarausad’s argument that certain jury instructions used at his trial were ambiguous and were likely misinterpreted by the jury to relieve the State of its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Sarausad v. Porter, 479 F. 3d 671 (2007). We disagree. Because the Washington courts reasonably applied our precedent to the facts of this case, we reverse the judgment below.
I
A
The driveby shooting was the culmination of a gang dispute between the 23d Street Diablos, of which Cesar Sarausad was a member, and the Bad Side Posse, which was headquartered at Ballard High School in Seattle, Washington. A member of the Diablos, Jerome Reyes, had been chased from Ballard by members of the Bad Side Posse, so the Diablos decided to go “to Ballard High School to show that the Diablos were not afraid” of the rival gang. App. to Pet. for Cert. 235a. The Diablos started a fight with the Bad Side Posse, but left quickly after someone indicated that police were nearby. They went to a gang member’s house, still angry because the Bad Side Posse had “called [them] weak.” Tr. 2660-2661. Brian Ronquillo retrieved a handgun, and the gang decided to return to Ballard and “get [their] respect back.” Id., at 2699.
Sarausad drove, with Ronquillo in the front passenger seat and Reyes and two other Diablos in the back seat. En route, someone in the car mentioned “‘capping’” the Bad Side Posse, and Ronquillo tied a bandana over the lower part of his face and readied the handgun. Sarausad v. State, 109 Wash. App. 824, 844, 39 P. 3d 308, 319 (2001). Shortly before reaching the high school, a second car of Diablos pulled up next to Sarausad’s car and the drivers of the two cars talked briefly. Sarausad asked the other driver, “ ‘Are you ready?’ ” id., at 844-845, 39 P. 3d, at 319, and then sped the rest of the way to the high school. Once in front of the school, Sarausad abruptly slowed to about five miles per hour while Ronquillo fired 6 to 10 shots at a group of students standing in front of it. Id., at 831, 39 P. 3d, at 312. Sarausad “saw everyone go down,” Tr. 2870, and then sped away, 109 Wash. App., at 832, 39 P. 3d, at 313. The gunfire killed one student; another student was wounded when a bullet fragment struck his -leg. Id., at 831-832, 39 P. 3d, at 312-313.
B
Sarausad, Ronquillo, and Reyes were tried for the first-degree murder of Melissa Fernandes, the attempted first-degree murders of Ryan Lam and Tam Nguyen, and the second-degree assault of Brent Mason. Sarausad and Reyes, who were tried as accomplices, argued at trial that they could not have been accomplices to murder because they “had no idea whatsoever that Ronquillo had armed himself for the return trip.” Id., at 832, 39 P. 3d, at 313. They claimed that they expected, at most, another fistfight with the Bad Side Posse and were “totally and utterly dismayed when Ronquillo started shooting.” Ibid.
Sarausad’s counsel, in particular, argued that there was no evidence that Sarausad expected anything more than that the two gangs “would exchange insults, and maybe, maybe get into a fight.” Tr. 1151. Sarausad testified that he considered only the “possibility of a fight,” id., at 2799, but never the possibility of a shooting, 109 Wash. App., at 832, 39 P. 3d, at 313. During closing arguments, Sarausad’s attorney again argued that the evidence showed only that Sarausad was “willing to fight them the way they fought them the first time. And that is by pushing and shoving and more tough talk.” App. 81. That was not sufficient, the attorney argued, to find that “Cesar [Sarausad] had knowledge that his assistance would promote or facilitate the crime of premeditated murder.” Id., at 83. Sarausad’s attorney also explained to the jury that knowledge of just any crime, such as knowledge that criminal assistance would be rendered after the shooting, would be insufficient to hold Sarausad responsible as an accomplice to murder because “Accomplice liability requires that one assists with knowledge, that their actions will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime.” Id., at 100 (emphasis added).
In response, the prosecutor focused much of her closing argument on the evidence of Sarausad’s knowledge of a shooting. He had “slowed down before the shots were fired, stayed slowed down until the shots were over and immediately sped up.” Id., at 39. “There was no hesitation, there was no stopping the car. There was no attempt for Mr. Sarausad to swerve his car out of the way so that innocent people wouldn’t get shot.” Id., at 40. She also argued that Sarausad knew when he drove back to the school that his gang’s “fists didn’t work, the pushing didn’t work, the flashing of the signs, the violent altercation didn’t work” because the Bad Side Posse still “laughed at them, they called them weak, they called them nothing.” Id., at 44. So, “[w]hen they rode down to Ballard High School that last time,... [t]hey knew they were there to commit a crime, to disrespect the gang, to fight, to shoot, to get that respect back. A fist didn’t work, pushing didn’t work. Shouting insults at them didn’t work. Shooting was going to work. In for a dime, you’re in for a dollar.” Id., at 123-124.
At the close of trial, the jury received two instructions that directly quoted Washington’s accomplice-liability statute. Instruction number 45 provided:
“You are instructed that a person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable. A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the crime.” Id., at 16 (emphasis added).
Instruction number 46 provided, in relevant part:
“A person is an accomplice in the commission of a crime if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she either:
“(1) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to commit the crime or
“(2) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing the crime.” Id., at 17 (emphasis added).
During seven days of deliberations, the jury asked five questions, three of which related to the intent requirement for accomplice liability. One questioned the accomplice-liability standard as it related to the first-degree murder instructions; one questioned the standard as it related to the second-degree murder instructions; and one stated that the jury was “having difficulty agreeing on the legal definition and concept of ‘accomplice’ ” and whether a person’s “willing participation] in a group activity” makes “that person an accomplice to any crime committed by anyone in the group.” Id., at 129. In response to each question, the judge instructed the jury to reread the accomplice-liability instructions and to consider the instructions as a whole.
The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to Reyes, and the judge declared a mistrial as to him. The jury then returned guilty verdicts on all counts for Ronquillo and convicted Sarausad of the lesser included crimes of second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and second-degree assault.
C
On appeal, Sarausad argued that because the State did not prove that he had intent to kill, he could not be convicted as an accomplice to second-degree murder under Washington law. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions, explaining that under Washington law, an accomplice must have “general knowledge” that the crime will occur, but need not have the specific intent required for that crime’s commission. App. to Pet. for Cert. 259a. The court referred to accomplice liability as “a theory of criminal liability that in Washington has been reduced to the maxim, ‘in for a dime, in for a dollar.’” Id., at 235a. The Washington Supreme Court denied discretionary review. State v. Ronquillo, 136 Wash. 2d 1018, 966 P. 2d 1277 (1998).
Shortly thereafter, the Washington Supreme Court clarified in an unrelated criminal case that “in for a dime, in for a dollar” is not the best descriptor of accomplice liability under Washington law because an accomplice must have knowledge of “the crime” that occurs. State v. Roberts, 142 Wash. 2d 471, 509-510, 14 P. 3d 713, 734-735 (2000). Therefore, an accomplice who knows of one crime — the dime — is not guilty of a greater crime — the dollar — if he has no knowledge of that greater crime. It was error, then, to instruct a jury that an accomplice’s knowledge of “ ‘a crime’ ” was sufficient to establish accomplice liability for “‘the crime.’” Ibid. The Washington Supreme Court limited this decision to instructions containing the phrase “a crime” and explicitly reaffirmed its precedent establishing that jury instructions linking an accomplice’s knowledge to “the crime,” such as the instruction used at Sarausad’s trial, comport with Washington law. Id., at 511-512, 14 P. 3d, at 736 (discussing State v. Davis, 101 Wash. 2d 654, 656, 682 P. 2d 883, 884 (1984)). An instruction that references “the crime” “copie[s] exactly the language from the accomplice liability statute” and properly hinges criminal punishment on knowledge of “the crime” for which the defendant was charged' as an accomplice. 142 Wash. 2d, at 512, 14 P. 3d, at 736.
D
Sarausad next sought postconviction relief from the Washington courts. He argued that although the accomplice-liability instruction used at his trial complied with Roberts, “an additional clarifying instruction should have been given” because the prosecutor may have confused the jury by improperly arguing that he had been “ ‘in for a dime, in for a dollar.’ ” Sarausad, 109 Wash. App., at 829, 39 P. 3d, at 311. Therefore, he argued, the jury may have convicted him as an accomplice to second-degree murder based solely on his admission that he anticipated that an assault would occur at Ballard High School.
The Washington Court of Appeals reexamined the trial record in its entirety in light of Roberts, see 109 Wash. App., at 834, 39 P. 3d, at 313-314, but found no error requiring correction. According to the court, the prosecutor’s closing argument in its entirety did not convey “that the jury could find Sarausad guilty as an accomplice to murder if he had the purpose to facilitate an offense of any kind whatsoever, even a shoving match or fist fight.” Id., at 840, 39 P. 3d, at 317. The prosecutor’s “‘in for a dime, in for a dollar’” illustration also did not convey that standard. Id., at 842-843, 39 P. 3d, at 318. The court explained that in every situation but one, the prosecutor clearly did not use that phrase to argue that Sarausad could be convicted of murder if he intended only a fistfight. Instead, she used it to convey a “gang mentality” that requires a wrong to the gang to be avenged by any means necessary. Id., at 842, 39 P. 3d, at 318. Thus, according to the prosecutor, when a fight did not work, Sarausad knew that a shooting was required to avenge his gang. See ibid.
There was one “in for a dime, in for a dollar” hypothetical in the prosecutor’s closing that did not convey this gang-mentality meaning and thus, the court recognized, “may or may not be problematic under Roberts” depending on how it was interpreted. Id., at 843, 39 P. 3d, at 318. The court concluded that it did not need to decide whether the hypothetical was improper under state law because, even if it was, it did not prejudice Sarausad. Sarausad’s jury was properly instructed and “the prosecutor made it crystal clear to the jury that the State wanted Sarausad found guilty... because he knowingly facilitated the drive-by shooting and for no other reason.” Id., at 843-844, 39 P. 3d, at 319.
Sarausad sought discretionary postconviction review from the Supreme Court of Washington. In denying his petition, the court held that “the trial court correctly instructed the jury” that knowledge of the particular crime committed was required. App. to Pet. for Cert. 191a. The court also found that no prejudicial error resulted from the prosecutor’s potentially improper hypothetical. Id., at 192a. “[Whatever the flaws in the argument, the prosecutor properly focused on Mr. Sarausad’s knowing participation in the shooting, not in some lesser altercation.” Ibid.
E
Sarausad filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2254. The District Court granted the petition, finding “ample evidence that the jury was confused about what elements had to be established in order for [Sarausad] to be found guilty of second degree murder and second degree attempted murder.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 129a. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the state postconviction court unreasonably applied this Court’s decisions in Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62 (1991), Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979), and In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), in affirming Sarausad’s conviction in spite of ambiguous jury instructions and the “ ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury ... applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” 479 F. 3d, at 683 (quoting Estelle, supra, at 72). The court denied rehearing en banc over the dissent of five judges. Sarausad v. Porter, 503 F. 3d 822 (2007). We granted certiorari, 552 U. S. 1256 (2008), and now reverse.
II
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, a federal court may grant habeas relief on a claim “adjudicated on the merits” in state court only if the decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). Where, as here, it is the state court’s application of governing federal law that is challenged, the decision “‘must be shown to be not only erroneous, but objectively unreasonable.’” Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U. S. 433, 436 (2004) (per curiam) (quoting Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U. S. 1, 5 (2003) (per curiam))) see also Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U. S. 465, 473 (2007) (“The question under AEDPA is not whether a federal court believes the state court’s determination was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable — a substantially higher threshold”).
Our habeas precedent places an “especially heavy” burden on a defendant who, like Sarausad, seeks to show constitutional error from a jury instruction that quotes a state statute. Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U. S. 145, 155 (1977). Even if there is some “ambiguity, inconsistency, or deficiency” in the instruction, such an error does not necessarily constitute a due process violation. Middleton, supra, at 437. Rather, the defendant must show both that the instruction was ambiguous and that there was “ ‘a reasonable likelihood’ ” that the jury applied the instruction in a way that relieved the State of its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Estelle, supra, at 72 (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 380 (1990)). In making this determination, the jury instruction “ ‘may not be judged in artificial isolation,’ but must be considered in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.” Estelle, supra, at 72 (quoting Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 147 (1973)). Because it is not enough that there is some “slight possibility” that the jury misapplied the instruction, Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U. S. 225, 236 (2000), the pertinent question “is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process,’ ” Estelle, supra, at 72 (quoting Cupp, supra, at 147).
A
The Washington courts reasonably concluded that the trial court’s instruction to the jury was not ambiguous. The instruction parroted the language of the statute, requiring that an accomplice “in the commission of the crime” take action “with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime” App. 16-17 (emphasis added); Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9A.08.020(2)(c), (3)(a) (2008). It is impossible to assign any meaning to this instruction different from the meaning given to it by the Washington courts. By its plain terms, it instructed the jury to find Sarausad guilty as an accomplice “in the commission of the [murder]” only if he acted “with knowledge that [his conduct] will promote or facilitate the commission of the [murder].” App. 16 — 17. Because the conclusion reached by the Washington courts that the jury instruction was unambiguous was not objectively unreasonable, the Court of Appeals’ 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1) inquiry should have ended there.
B
Even if we agreed that the instruction was ambiguous, the Court of Appeals still erred in finding that the instruction was so ambiguous as to cause a federal constitutional violation, as required for us to reverse the state court’s determination under AEDPA, 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). The Washington courts reasonably applied this Court’s precedent when they determined that there was no “reasonable likelihood” that the prosecutor’s closing argument caused Sarausad’s jury to apply the instruction in a way that relieved the State of its burden to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor consistently argued that Sarausad was guilty as an accomplice because he acted with knowledge that he was facilitating a driveby shooting. Indeed, Sarausad and Reyes had admitted under oath that they anticipated a fight, Tr. 2671, 2794, and yet the prosecutor never argued that their admission was a concession of accomplice liability for murder. She instead argued that Sarausad knew that a shooting was intended, App. 123, because he drove his car in a way that would help Ronquillo “fire those shots,” id., at 39. The closing argument of Sarausad’s attorney also homed in on the key legal question: He challenged the jury to look for evidence that Sarausad “had knowledge that his assistance would promote or facilitate the crime of premeditated murder” and argued that no such evidence existed. Id., at 83.
Put simply, there was no evidence of ultimate juror confusion as to the test for accomplice liability under Washington law. Rather, the jury simply reached a unanimous decision that the State had proved Sarausad’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, every state and federal appellate court that reviewed the verdict found that the evidence supporting Sarausad’s knowledge of a shooting was legally sufficient to convict him under Washington law. 479 F. 3d, at 677-683; Sarausad, 109 Wash. App., at 844-845, 39 P. 3d, at 319. Given the strength of the evidence supporting the conviction, along with the jury’s failure to convict Reyes — who also had been charged as an accomplice to murder and also had admitted knowledge of a possible fight — it was not objectively unreasonable for the Washington courts to conclude that the jury convicted Sarausad only because it believed that he, unlike Reyes, had knowledge of more than just a fistfight. The reasoning of the Court of Appeals, which failed to review the state courts’ resolution of this question through the deferential lens of AEDPA, does not convince us otherwise.
First, the Court of Appeals found that the evidence of Sarausad’s knowledge of the shooting was so “thin” that the jury must have incorrectly believed that proof of such knowledge was not required. 479 F. 3d, at 692-693. That conclusion, however, is foreclosed by the Court of Appeals’ own determination that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to reasonably infer that Sarausad knowingly facilitated the driveby shooting. As explained above, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the evidence showed that Ronquillo, while seated in Sarausad’s front passenger seat, tied a bandana over the lower part of his face and pulled out a gun. Id., at 681. There also was evidence that Sarausad then asked the Diablos in the other car, “ Are you ready?’ ” before driving to the school and “slow[ing] his ear in front of the school in a manner that facilitated a drive-by shooting.” Ibid. Other gang members testified to prior knowledge of the gun and to discussing the shooting as an option during the gang meeting held between trips to Ballard High School. Id., at 682. There also was testimony from Sarausad that he suspected that members of the Bad Side Posse would be armed when they returned to Ballard High School, ibid., making it reasonable to conclude that Sarausad would expect his gang to be similarly prepared for the confrontation. There was nothing “thin” about the evidence of Sarausad’s guilt.
Second, the Court of Appeals faulted the prosecutor for arguing “clearly and forcefully” for an “ ‘in for a dime, in for a dollar’” theory of accomplice liability. Id., at 693. But the Washington Court of Appeals conducted an in-depth analysis of the prosecutor’s argument and reasonably found that it contained, at most, one problematic hypothetical. Sarausad, supra, at 842-843, 39 P. 3d, at 318-319. The state court’s conclusion that the one hypothetical did not taint the proper instruction of state law was reasonable under this Court’s precedent, which acknowledges that “arguments of counsel generally carry less weight with a jury than do instructions from the court.” Boyde, 494 U. S., at 384. On habeas review, the Court of Appeals should not have dissected the closing argument and exaggerated the possible effect of one hypothetical in it. There was nothing objectively unreasonable about the Washington courts’ resolution of this question.
Third, and last, the Court of Appeals believed that the jury’s questions “demonstrated substantial confusion about what the State was required to prove.” 479 F. 3d, at 693. Sarausad focuses special attention on this factor, arguing that it was the “failure to remedy” this confusion that sets this case apart from previous decisions and establishes that the jury likely “did not understand accomplice liability” when it returned its verdict. Brief for Respondent 29, 31. But this Court has determined that the Constitution generally requires nothing more from a trial judge than the type of answers given to the jury here. Weeks, 528 U. S., at 234. Where a judge “respond[s] to the jury’s question by directing its attention to the precise paragraph of the constitutionally adequate instruction that answers its inquiry,” and the jury asks no followup question, this Court has presumed that the jury fully understood the judge’s answer and appropriately applied the jury instructions. Ibid.
Under this established standard, it was not objectively unreasonable for the state court to conclude that Sarausad’s jury received the answers it needed to resolve its confusion. Its questions were spaced throughout seven days of deliberations, involved different criminal charges, and implicated the interrelation of several different jury instructions. The judge pinpointed his answers to the particular instructions responsive to the questions and those instructions reflected state law. Under these circumstances, the state court did not act in an objectively unreasonable manner in finding that the jury knew the proper legal standard for conviction.
III
Because the state-court decision did not result in an “unreasonable application of . . . clearly established Federal law,” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1), the Court of Appeals erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus to Sarausad. The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Washington’s accomplice-liability statute provides, in pertinent part:
“A person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable. A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when:
“He is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the crime.
“A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of a crime if... [w]ith knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he
“(i) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests such other person to commit it; or
“(ii) aids or agrees to aid such other person in planning or committing it.” Wash. Rev. Code §§9A.08.020(l)-(3) (2008) (internal numbering omitted).
The instruction found faulty in Roberts provided in full:
“You are instructed that a person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable. A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of a crime.
“A person is an accomplice in the commission of a crime, whether present at the time of its commission or not, if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate its commission, he either:
“(a) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to commit the crime; or
“(b) aids another person in planning or committing the crime.” 142 Wash. 2d, at 488-489,14 P. 3d, at 724 (emphasis added).
The prosecutor had argued in the hypothetical that an accomplice who knows that he is helping someone assault a victim bears responsibility if the victim is killed. The hypothetical stated in full:
“Let me give you a good example of accomplice liability. A friend comes up to you and says, ‘Hold this person’s arms while I hit him.’ You say, ‘Okay, I don’t like that person, anyway.’ You hold the arms. The person not only gets assaulted, he gets killed. You are an accomplice and you can’t come back and say, “Well, I only intended this much damage to happen.’ Your presence, your readiness to assist caused the crime to occur and you are an accomplice. The law in the State of Washington says, if you’re in for a dime, you’re in for a dollar. If you’re there or even if you’re not there and you’re helping in some fashion to bring about this crime, you are just as guilty.” App. 38.
The dissent would reverse the Washington state courts based on the alleged confusion in Washington courts, and specifically in the Washington Court of Appeals on direct review, about the meaning of the Washington accomplice-liability statute. Post, at 198-200 (opinion of Souter, J.). But the confusion in the Court of Appeals over the application of the statute involved the related, but legally distinct, question whether an accomplice is required to share the specific intent of the principal actor under Washington law. On direct appeal, respondent argued that he should not have been convicted as an accomplice to murder because he did not have the specific intent to kill. The Washington Court of Appeals rejected that argument because “it was not necessary for the State to prove Sarausad knew Ronquillo had a gun, or knew that there was a potential for gunplay that day” under Washington law, App. to Pet. for Cert. 266a, where “accomplice liability predicates criminal liability on general knowledge of a crime, rather than specific knowledge of the elements of the principal’s crime,” id., at 259a. But the Washington Court of Appeals never held that knowledge of a completely different crime, such as assault, would be sufficient under Washington law for accomplice liability for murder. See id., at 258a-259a; see also In re Domingo, 155 Wash. 2d 356, 367-368, 119 P. 3d 816, 822 (2005) (“[Njeither Davis nor any of this court’s decisions subsequent to Davis approves of the proposition that accomplice liability attaches for any and all crimes committed by the principal so long as the putative accomplice knowingly aided in any one of the crimes”). In other words, the Court of Appeals had evaluated whether respondent’s conviction required a specific intent versus a general intent to kill, not whether it required knowledge of a murder versus knowledge of an assault — the issue under review here. Thus, the confusion in the state courts referenced by the dissent has no bearing on the question presented in this appeal, and does not support the dissent’s argument that the jury instruction in question was ambiguous.
To the extent that the Court of Appeals attempted to rewrite state law by proposing that the instruction should have included “an explicit statement that an accomplice must have knowledge of... the actual crime the principal intends to commit,” 479 F. 3d 671, 690 (CA9 2007), it compounded its error. The Washington Supreme Court expressly held that the jury instruction correctly set forth state law, App. to Pet. for Cert. 191a, and we have repeatedly held that “it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62, 67-68 (1991).
The dissent accuses us of downplaying this ambiguous hypothetical, arguing that it is so rife with improper meaning that it “infect[ed] every further statement bearing on accomplice law the prosecutor made,” post, at 202, and ensured that the jury misinterpreted the trial court’s properly phrased instruction. We disagree. The proper inquiry is whether the state court was objectively unreasonable in concluding that the instruction (which precisely tracked the language of the accomplice-liability statute) was not warped by this one-paragraph hypothetical in an argument and rebuttal spanning 31 pages of the joint appendix. The state court’s conclusion was not unreasonable. The hypothetical was presented during closing arguments, which juries generally “vie[w] as the statements of advocates” rather than “as definitive and binding statements of the law,” Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 384 (1990), and which, as a whole, made clear that the State sought a guilty verdict based solely on Sarausad’s “knowledge that his assistance would promote or facilitate the crime of premeditated murder,” App. 83; see also id., at 123-124.
The dissent argues that we “sideste[p] the thrust of this record” by finding that the trial judge’s answers to the jury’s questions were satisfactory. Post, at 205. But our decision cannot turn on a de novo review of the record or a finding that the answers were “the best way to answer jurors’ questions,” ibid. On federal habeas review, this Court’s inquiry is limited to whether the state court violated clearly established federal law when it held that the jury applied the correct standard, in light of the answers given to its questions. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). On that issue, the state court was not objectively unreasonable; the jury's questions were answered in a manner previously approved by this Court, and they consistently referred the jury to the correct standard for accomplice liability in Washington. The dissent also ignores the important fact that the jury convicted Ronquillo of first-degree murder, convicted respondent of second-degree murder, and failed to reach an agreement on Reyes’ guilt, causing a mistrial on the first-degree murder charge pending against him. The jury’s assignment of culpability to two of the codefendants, versus its deadlock over a third who, like respondent, conceded knowledge of an assault, demonstrates that the jury understood the legal significance of each defendant’s relative knowledge and intent with respect to the murder.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The question presented by our grant of certiorari is whether, under the circumstances of this case, federal criminal statutes violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by subjecting individuals to federal prosecution by virtue of their status as Indians.
(1)
On the night of February 18, 1974, respondents, enrolled Coeur d'Alene Indians, broke into the home of Emma Johnson, an 81-year-old non-Indian, in Worley, Idaho; they robbed and killed Mrs. Johnson. Because the crimes were committed by enrolled Indians within the boundaries of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation, respondents were subject to federal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1153. They were, accordingly, indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of burglary, robbery, and murder. Respondent William Davison was convicted of second-degree murder only. Respondents Gabriel Francis Antelope and Leonard Davison were found guilty of all three crimes as charged, including first-degree murder under the felony-murder provisions of 18 U. S. C. § 1111, as made applicable to enrolled Indians by 18 U. S. C. § 1153.
(2)
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, respondents contended that their felony-murder convictions were unlawful as products of invidious racial discrimination. They argued that a non-Indian charged with precisely the same offense, namely the murder of another non-Indian within Indian country, would have been subject to prosecution only under Idaho law, which in contrast to the federal murder statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1111, does not contain a felony-murder provision. To establish the crime of first-degree murder in state court, therefore, Idaho would have had to prove premeditation and deliberation. No such elements were required under the felony-murder component of 18 U. S. C. § 1111.
Because of the difference between Idaho and federal law, the Court of Appeals concluded that respondents were “put at a serious racially-based disadvantage,” 523 F. 2d 400, 406 (1975), since the Federal Government was not required to establish premeditation and deliberation in respondents’ federal prosecution. This disparity, so the Court of Appeals concluded, violated equal protection requirements implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We granted the United States’ petition for certiorari, 424 U. S. 907 (1976), and we reverse.
(3)
The decisions of this Court leave no doubt that federal legislation with respect to Indian tribes, although relating to Indians as such, is not based upon impermissible racial classifications. Quite the contrary, classifications expressly singling out Indian tribes as subjects of legislation are expressly provided for in the Constitution and supported by the ensuing history of the Federal Government’s relations with Indians.
“Indian tribes are unique aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory, Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 557 (1832); they are 'a separate people’ possessing ‘the power of regulating their internal and social relations . . . .’ ” United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544, 557 (1975).
Legislation with respect to these “unique aggregations” has repeatedly been sustained by this Court against claims of unlawful racial discrimination. In upholding a limited employment preference for Indians in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we said in Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 552 (1974):
“Literally every piece of legislation dealing with Indian tribes and reservations . . . single [s] out for special treatment a constituency of tribal Indians living on or near reservations. If these laws . . . were deemed invidious racial discrimination, an entire Title of the United States Code (25 U. S. C.) would be effectively erased . . . .”
In light of that result, the Court unanimously concluded in Mancari:
“The preference, as applied, is granted to Indians not as a discrete racial group, but, rather, as members of quasisovereign tribal entities . . . .” Id., at 554.
Last Term, in Fisher v. District Court, 424 U. S. 382 (1976), we held that members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe could be denied access to Montana State courts in connection with an adoption proceeding arising on their reservation. Unlike Mancari, the Indian plaintiffs in Fisher were being denied a benefit or privilege available to non-Indians; nevertheless, a unanimous Court dismissed the claim of racial discrimination:
“[W]e reject the argument that denying [the Indian plaintiffs] access to the Montana courts constitutes impermissible racial discrimination. The exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribal Court does not derive from the race of the plaintiff but rather from the quasi-sovereign status of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe under federal law.” 424 U. S., at 390.
Both Mancari and Fisher involved preferences or disabilities directly promoting Indian interests in self-government, whereas in the present case we are dealing, not with matters of tribal self-regulation, but with federal regulation of criminal conduct within Indian country implicating Indian interests. But the principles reaffirmed in Mancari and Fisher point more broadly to the conclusion that federal regulation of Indian affairs is not based upon impermissible classifications. Rather, such regulation is rooted in the unique status of Indians as “a separate people” with their own political institutions. Federal regulation of Indian tribes, therefore, is governance of once-sovereign political communities; it is not to be viewed as legislation of a “ 'racial' group consisting of ‘Indians’ . . . .” Morton v. Mancari, supra, at 553 n. 24. Indeed, respondents were not subjected to federal criminal jurisdiction because they are of the Indian race but because they are enrolled members of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe. We therefore conclude that the federal criminal statutes enforced here are based neither in whole nor in part upon impermissible racial classifications.
(4)
The challenged statutes do not otherwise violate equal protection. We have previously observed that Indians indicted under the Major Crimes Act enjoy the same procedural benefits and privileges as all other persons within federal jurisdiction. Keeble v. United States, 412 U. S. 205, 212 (1973). See 18 U. S. C. § 3242. Respondents were, therefore, subjected to the same body of law as any other individual, Indian or non-Indian, charged with first-degree murder committed in a federal enclave. They do not, and could not, contend otherwise.
There remains, then, only the disparity between federal and Idaho law as the basis for respondents' equal protection claim. Since Congress has undoubted constitutional power to prescribe a criminal code applicable in Indian country, United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 (1886), it is of no consequence that the federal scheme differs from a state criminal code otherwise applicable within the boundaries of the State of Idaho. Under our federal system, the National Government does not violate equal protection when its own body of law is evenhanded, regardless of the laws of States with respect to the same subject matter.
The Federal Government treated respondents in the same manner as all other persons within federal jurisdiction, pursuant to a regulatory scheme that did not erect impermissible racial classifications; hence, no violation of the Due Process Clause infected respondents’ convictions.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1153 at the time in question provided in pertinent part:
“Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, murder, manslaughter, rape, carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with intent to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to kill, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.”
The background leading up to enactment of the Major Crimes Act is discussed in Keeble v. United States, 412 U. S. 205, 209-212 (1973). As noted in that case, the Government has characterized the Major Crimes Act as “a carefully limited intrusion of federal power into the otherwise exclusive jurisdiction of the Indian tribes to punish Indians for crimes committed on Indian land.” Id., at 209.
Except for the offenses enumerated in the Major Crimes Act, all crimes committed by enrolled Indians against other Indians within Indian country are subject to the jurisdiction of tribal courts. 18 U. S. C. § 1152. Not all crimes committed within Indian country are subject to federal or tribal jurisdiction, however. Under United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621 (1882), a non-Indian charged with committing crimes against other non-Indians in Indian country is subject to prosecution under state law.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1111 is the federal murder statute. It provides in pertinent part:
“(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
“Any: other murder is murder in the second degree.”
It should be emphasized that respondent William Davison was convicted only of second-degree murder, not felony murder, under 18 U. S. C. § 1111.
See n. 2, supra. Federal law ostensibly extends federal jurisdiction to all crimes occurring in Indian country, except offenses subject to tribal jurisdiction. 18 U. S. C. § 1152. However, under United States v. McBratney, supra, and cases that followed, this Court construed § 1152 and its predecessors as not applying to crimes by non-Indians against other non-Indians. Thus, respondents correctly argued that, had the perpetrators of the crimes been non-Indians, the courts of Idaho would have had jurisdiction over these charges.
Idaho statutes contain the following definition of first-degree murder:
“All murder which is perpetrated by means of poison, or lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing is murder of the first degree. Any murder of any peace officer of this state or of any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof, when the officer is acting in line of duty, . . . shall be murder in the first degree. ... All other kinds of murder are of the second degree.” Idaho Code § 18-4003 (Supp. 1976).
Article I, § 8, of the Constitution gives Congress power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”
As was true in Mancari, federal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act does not apply to “many individuals who are racially to be classified as ‘Indians.’ ” 417 U. S., at 553 n. 24. Thus, the prosecution in this case offered proof that respondents are enrolled members of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and thus not emancipated from tribal relations. Moreover, members of tribes whose official status has been terminated by congressional enactment are no longer subject, by virtue of their status, to federal criminal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act. United States v. Heath, 509 E. 2d 16, 19 (CA9 1974) (“While anthropologically a Klamath Indian even after the Termination Act obviously remains an Indian, his unique status vis-á-vis the Federal Government no longer exists”). In addition, as enrolled tribal members, respondents were subjected to federal jurisdiction only because their crimes were committed within the confines of Indian country, as defined in 18 U. S. C. § 1151. Crimes occurring elsewhere would not be subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction. Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 391 U. S. 392, 397 n. 11 (1968).
It should be noted, however, that enrollment in an official tribe has not been held to be an absolute requirement for federal jurisdiction, at least where the Indian defendant lived on the reservation and “maintained tribal relations with the Indians thereon.” Ex parte Pero, 99 F. 2d 28, 30 (CA7 1938). See also United States v. Ives, 504 F. 2d 935, 953 (CA9 1974) (dicta). Since respondents are enrolled tribal members, we are not called on to decide whether nonenrolled Indians are subject to 18 U. S. C. § 1153, and we therefore intimate no views on the matter.
Other than their argument that the federal statutes create an invidious racial classification, respondents do not seriously contend that application of federal law to Indian tribes is so irrational as to deny equal protection. See n. 11, infra. They do point, however, to Congress’ relinquishment of criminal jurisdiction over Indians in six States pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 1162. But § 1162 is simply one manifestation of Congress’ continuing concern with the welfare of Indian tribes under federal guardianship. Indeed, in adopting § 1162, Congress singled out certain reservations to remain subject to federal criminal jurisdiction. Congress’ selective approach in § 1162 reinforces, rather than undermines, the conclusion that legislation directed toward Indian tribes is a necessary and appropriate consequence of federal guardianship under the Constitution.
Federal jurisdiction would extend to crimes, regardless of the race of the perpetrator or victim, committed on federal enclaves, such as military installations, or on vessels of the United States on the high seas.
Congress has provided for federal jurisdiction over the crime of murder on a reservation, much as on other federal enclaves, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1111, 1153. But as our opinions have recognized that Indian reservations differ in certain respects from other federal enclaves, the statute has been construed as not encompassing crimes on the reservation by non-Indians against non-Indians. United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621 (1882); see Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U. S. 647, 651 (1930); Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 219-220 (1959); McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 171 (1973). Federal statutes do not single out Indians as such; non-Indian defendants are also covered if the victim was a member of the tribe.
Respondents base their equal protection claim on the assumption that they have been disadvantaged by being prosecuted under federal law. In their view, their murder convictions were made more likely by the fact that federal prosecutors were not required to prove premeditation. However, they do not seriously question that the evidence adduced at their federal trial might well have supported a finding of premeditation and deliberation, since respondents were found to have beaten and kicked Mrs. Johnson to death during the course of a planned robbery.
It should be noted, however, that this Court has consistently upheld federal regulations aimed solely at tribal Indians, as opposed to all persons subject to federal jurisdiction. See, e. g., United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 417-418 (1866); Perrin v. United States, 232 U. S. 478, 482 (1914). See also Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, ante, at 613-615, n. 47. Indeed, the Constitution itself provides support for legislation directed specifically at the Indian tribes. See n. 6, supra. As the Court noted in Morton v. Mancari, the Constitution therefore “singles Indians out as a proper subject for separate legislation.” 417 U. S., at 552.
In this regard, we are not concerned with instances in which Indians tried in federal court are subjected to differing penalties and burdens of proof from those applicable to non-Indians charged with the same offense. Compare United States v. Big Crow, 523 F. 2d 955 (CA8 1975), cert, denied. 424 U. S. 920 (1976), and United States v. Cleveland, 503 F. 2d 1067 (CA9 1974), with United States v. Analla, 490 F. 2d 1204 (CA10), vacated and remanded, 419 U. S. 813 (1974). See 18 U. S. C. §1153 (1976 ed.) (which provides for uniform penalties for both Indians and non-Indians charged with assault resulting in serious bodily injury). That issue is not before us, and we intimate no views on it.
Indeed, had respondents been prosecuted under state law, they may well have argued, under this Court’s holding in Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U. S. 351 (1962), that the state conviction was void for want of jurisdiction. In Seymour, an enrolled member of the Colville Indian Tribe was convicted in state court of attempted burglary within Indian country. In reversing the state conviction, this Court held:
“Since the burglary with which petitioner was charged occurred on property . . . within the . . . [Indian] reservation, the courts of Washington had no jurisdiction to try him for that offense.” Id., at 359.
If state courts would have had no jurisdiction over respondents’ case, then state law does not constitute a meaningful point of reference for establishing a claim of equal protection.
If we accepted respondents’ contentions, persons charged with crimes on federal military bases or other federal enclaves could demand that their federal prosecutions be governed by state law to the extent that state law was more “lenient” than federal law. The Constitution does not authorize this kind of gamesmanship. Indeed, any such rule, even assuming its workability, is flatly inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Art. VI, cl. 2.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases concern an Alabama statute which increased the severance tax on oil and gas extracted from Alabama wells, exempted royalty owners from the tax increase, and prohibited producers from passing on the increase to their purchasers. Appellants challenge the pass-through prohibition and the royalty-owner exemption under the Supremacy Clause, the Contract Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.
I
Since 1945 Alabama has imposed a severance tax on oil and gas extracted from wells located in the State. Ala. Code § 40-20-1 et seq. (1975). The tax “is levied upon the producers of such oil or gas in the proportion of their ownership at the time of severance, but... shall be paid by the person in charge of the production operations.” §40-20-3(a). The person in charge of production operations is “authorized, empowered and required to deduct from any amount due to producers of such production at the time of severance the proportionate amount of the tax herein levied before making payments to such producers.” §40-20-3(a). The statute defines a “producer” as “[a]ny person engaging or continuing in the business of oil or gas production,” including
“the owning, controlling, managing, or leasing of any oil or gas property or oil or gas well, and producing in any manner any oil or gas... and... receiving money or other valuable consideration as royalty or rental for oil or gas produced. §40-20-1(8).
In 1979 the Alabama Legislature enacted Act 79-434, which increased the severance tax from 4% to 6% of the gross value of the oil and gas at the point of production. Whereas the severance tax had previously fallen on royalty owners in proportion to their interests in the oil or gas produced, the amendment specifically exempted royalty owners from the tax increase:
“Any person who is a royalty owner shall be exempt from the payment of any increase in taxes herein levied and shall not be liable therefor.” 1979 Ala. Acts, No. 79-434, p. 687, §1, as amended, Ala. Code §40-20-2(d) (1982).
The amendment also prohibited producers from passing the tax increase through to consumers:
“The privilege tax herein levied shall be absorbed and paid by those persons engaged in the business of producing or severing oil or gas only, and the producer shall not pass on the costs of such tax payments, either directly or indirectly, to the consumer; it being the express intent of this act that the tax herein levied shall be borne exclusively by the producer or severer of oil or gas.” 1979 Ala. Acts, No. 79-434, p. 687, § 1(e).
The amendment became effective on September 1, 1979. The pass-through prohibition was repealed on May 28, 1980. 1980 Ala. Acts, No. 80-708, p. 1438.
Appellants in both No. 81-1020 and No. 81-1268 have working interests in producing oil and gas wells located in Alabama. They drill and operate the wells and are responsible for selling the oil and gas extracted. Appellants are obligated to pay the landowners a percentage of the sale proceeds as royalties, the percentage depending upon the provisions of the applicable lease. Within any given production unit, there may be tracts of land which the owners of the land have leased to non working interests, who are also entitled to a share of the sale proceeds. Appellants were parties to contracts providing for the allocation of severance taxes among themselves, the royalty owners, and any nonworking interests in proportion to each party’s share of the sale proceeds. Appellants were also parties to sale contracts that required the purchasers to reimburse them for any and all severance taxes on the oil or gas sold.
After paying the 2% increase in the severance tax under protest, appellants and eight other oil and gas producers filed suit in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Ala., seeking a declaratory judgment that Act 79-434 was unconstitutional and a refund of the taxes paid under protest. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of appellants, concluding that both the royalty-owner exemption and the pass-through prohibition violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Contract Clause, and that the pass-through prohibition is also preempted by the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 15 U. S. C. §3301 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. V). Although Act 79-434 contained a severability clause, the court held the entire Act invalid and ordered appellee Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Alabama to refund the taxes paid under protest. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed, holding Act 79-434 valid in its entirety. 404 So. 2d 1 (1981).
Appellants appealed to this Court under 28 U. S. C. §1257(2). We noted probable jurisdiction. 456 U. S. 970 (1982). We now affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
HH HH
We deal first with appellants’ contention that the application of the pass-through prohibition to gas was pre-empted by federal law. The applicable principles of pre-emption were recently summarized in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Comm’n, 461 U. S. 190, 203-204 (1983):
“Absent explicit pre-emptive language, Congress’ intent to supersede state law altogether may be found from a '“scheme of federal regulation... so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it,” because “the Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject,” or because “the object sought to be obtained by the federal law and the character of obligations imposed by it may reveal the same purpose.” ’ Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 153 (1982), quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947). Even where Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation in a specific area, state law is pre-empted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. Such a conflict arises when ‘compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility,’ Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941).”
Appellants contend that the pass-through prohibition was in conflict with § 110(a) of the NGPA, 92 Stat. 3368, 15 U. S. C. § 3320(a) (1976 ed., Supp. V), which provides in pertinent part as follows:
“[A] price for the first sale of natural gas shall not be considered to exceed the maximum lawful price applicable to the first sale of such natural gas under this part if such first sale price exceeds the maximum lawful price to the extent necessary to recover—
“(1) State severance taxes attributable to the production of such natural gas and borne by the seller...
We agree with the Supreme Court of Alabama that the pass-through prohibition did not conflict with this provision. On its face § 110(a) of the NGPA does not give any seller the affirmative right to include in his price an amount necessary to recover state severance taxes. It simply provides that a seller who does include such an amount in his price shall not be deemed to have exceeded the federal price ceiling if he would not have exceeded it had that amount not been included. Nothing in the legislative history of the NGPA has been called to our attention to indicate that § 110(a) was intended to have a greater effect than its language would indicate.
Although the pass-through prohibition thus was not in conflict with § 110(a) of the NGPA, we nevertheless conclude that it was pre-empted by federal law insofar as it applied to sales of gas in interstate commerce. To that extent, the pass-through prohibition represented an attempt to legislate in a field that Congress has chosen to occupy. The Natural Gas Act (Gas Act), 52 Stat. 821, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§717-717w (1976 ed. and Supp. V), was enacted in 1938 “to provide the Federal Power Commission, now the FERC, with authority to regulate the wholesale pricing of natural gas in the flow of interstate commerce from wellhead to delivery to consumers.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 748 (1981). As we have previously recognized, e. g., Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672, 682-683 (1954); id., at 685-687 (Frankfurter, J., concurring), the Gas Act was intended to occupy the field of wholesale sales of natural gas in interstate commerce, a field which had previously been left largely unregulated as a result of the absence of federal action and decisions of this Court striking down state regulation of sales of natural gas in interstate commerce. The Committee Reports on the bill that became the Gas Act clearly evidence this intent:
“[S]ales for resale, or so-called wholesale sales, in interstate commerce (for example, sales by producing companies to distributing companies)... have been considered to be not local in character and, even in the absence of Congressional action, not subject to State regulation. The basic purpose of the present legislation is to occupy this field in which the Supreme Court has held that the States may not act.” H. R. Rep. No. 709, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2 (1937); S. Rep. No. 1162, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1937) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
The Alabama pass-through prohibition trespassed upon FERC’s authority over wholesale sales of gas in interstate commerce, for it barred gas producers from increasing their prices to pass on a particular expense — the increase in the severance tax — to their purchasers. Whether or not producers should be permitted to recover this expense from their purchasers is a matter within the sphere of FERC’s regulatory authority. See FPC v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 386 U. S. 237, 243 (1967) (emphasis added):
“One of [the FPC’s] statutory duties is to determine just and reasonable rates which will be sufficient to permit the company to recover its costs of service and a reasonable return on its investment. Cost of service is therefore a major focus of inquiry. Normally included as a cost of service is a proper allowance for taxes....”
Here, as in Maryland v. Louisiana, the state statute “interfere[d] with the FERC’s authority to regulate the determination of the proper allocation of costs associated with the sale of natural gas to consumers.” 451 U. S., at 749. Just as the statute at issue in Maryland v. Louisiana was preempted because it effectively “shift[ed] the incidence of certain expenses... to the ultimate consumer of the processed gas without the prior approval of the FERC,” id., at 750, Alabama’s pass-through prohibition was pre-empted, insofar as it applied to sales of gas in interstate commerce, because it required that certain expenses be absorbed by producers.
We reach a different conclusion with respect to the application of the pass-through prohibition to sales of gas in intrastate commerce. Although § 105(a) of the NGPA extended federal authority to control prices to the intrastate market, 15 U. S. C. § 3315(a) (1976 ed., Supp. V), Congress also provided that this extension of federal authority did not deprive the States of the power to establish a price ceiling for intrastate producer sales of gas at a level lower than the federal ceiling. Section 602(a) of the NGPA, 92 Stat. 3411, as set forth in 15 U. S. C. §3432(a) (1976 ed., Supp. V), states that
“[n]othing in this chapter shall affect the authority of any State to establish or enforce any maximum lawful price for the first sale of natural gas produced in such State which does not exceed the applicable maximum lawful price, if any, under subchapter I of this chapter.”
See Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U. S. 400, 420-421 (1983) (in enacting the NGPA, "Congress explicitly envisioned that the States would regulate intrastate markets in accordance with the overall national policy”).
Since a State may establish a lower price ceiling, we think it may also impose a severance tax and forbid sellers to pass it through to their purchasers. For sellers charging the maximum price allowed by federal law, a state tax increase coupled with a pass-through prohibition will not differ in practical effect from a state tax increase coupled with the imposition of a state price ceiling that maintains the price ceiling imposed by federal law prior to the tax increase. In both cases sellers are required to absorb expenses that they might be able to pass through to their customers absent the state restrictions. Given the absence of any express pre-emption provision in the NGPA and Congress’ express approval of one form of state regulation, we do not think it can fairly be inferred that Congress contemplated that the general scheme created by the NGPA would preclude another form of state regulation that is no more intrusive.
We conclude that the pass-through prohibition was preempted by federal law insofar as it applied to sales of gas in interstate commerce, but not insofar as it applied to producer sales of gas in intrastate commerce.
h-i hH
We turn next to appellants’ contention that the royalty-owner exemption and the pass-through prohibition impaired the obligations of contracts in violation of the Contract Clause.
A
Appellants’ Contract Clause challenge to the royalty-owner exemption fails for the simple reason that there is nothing to suggest that that exemption nullified any contractual obligations of which appellants were the beneficiaries. The relevant provision of Act 79-434 states that “[a]ny person who is a royalty owner shall be exempt from the payment of any increase in taxes levied and shall not be liable therefor.” On its face this portion of the Act provides only that the legal incidence of the tax increase does not fall on royalty owners, i. e., the State cannot look to them for payment of the additional taxes. In contrast to the pass-through prohibition, the royalty-owner exemption nowhere states that producers may not shift the burden of the tax increase in whole or in part to royalty owners. Nor is there anything in the opinion below to suggest that the Supreme Court of Alabama interpreted the exemption to have this effect. We will not strain to reach a constitutional question by speculating that the Alabama courts might in the future interpret the royalty-owner exemption to forbid enforcement of a contractual arrangement to shift the burden of the tax increase. See Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346-347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
B
Unlike the royalty-owner exemption, the pass-through prohibition did restrict contractual obligations of which appellants were the beneficiaries. Appellants were parties to sale contracts that permitted them to include in their prices any increase in the severance taxes that they were required to pay on the oil or gas being sold. The contracts were entered into before the pass-through prohibition was enacted and their terms extended through the period during which the prohibition was in effect. By barring appellants from passing the tax increase through to their purchasers, the pass-through prohibition nullified pro tanto the purchasers’ contractual obligations to reimburse appellants for any severance taxes.
While the pass-through prohibition thus affects contractual obligations of which appellants were the beneficiaries, it does not follow that the prohibition constituted a “Law impairing the Obligations of Contracts” within the meaning of the Contract Clause. See United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U. S. 1, 21 (1977). “Although the language of the Contract Clause is facially absolute, its prohibition must be accommodated to the inherent police power of the State ‘to safeguard the vital interests of its people.’” Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U. S., at 410, quoting Home Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 434 (1934). This Court has long recognized that a statute does not violate the Contract Clause simply because it has the effect of restricting, or even barring altogether, the performance of duties created by contracts entered into prior to its enactment. See Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U. S. 234, 241-242 (1978). If the law were otherwise, “one would be able to obtain immunity from state regulation by making private contractual arrangements.” United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, supra, at 22.
The Contract Clause does not deprive the States of their “broad power to adopt general regulatory measures without being concerned that private contracts will be impaired, or even destroyed, as a result.” United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, supra, at 22. As Justice Holmes put it: “One whose rights, such as they are, are subject to state restriction, cannot remove them from the power of the State by making a contract about them. The contract will carry with it the infirmity of the subject matter.” Hudson Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 357 (1908). Thus, a state prohibition law may be applied to contracts for the sale of beer that were valid when entered into, Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25 (1878), a law barring lotteries may be applied to lottery tickets that were valid when issued, Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814 (1880), and a workmen’s compensation law may be applied to employers and employees operating under pre-existing contracts of employment that made no provision for work-related injuries, New York Central R. Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188 (1917).
Like the laws upheld in these cases, the pass-through prohibition did not prescribe a rule limited in effect to contractual obligations or remedies, but instead imposed a generally applicable rule of conduct designed to advance “a broad societal interest,” Allied Structural Steel Co., supra, at 249: protecting consumers from excessive prices. The prohibition applied to all oil and gas producers, regardless of whether they happened to be parties to sale contracts that contained a provision permitting them to pass tax increases through to their purchasers. The effect of the pass-through prohibition on existing contracts that did contain such a provision was incidental to its main effect of shielding consumers from the burden of the tax increase. Cf. Henderson Co. v. Thompson, 300 U. S. 258, 266 (1937); Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, supra, at 32.
Because the pass-through prohibition imposed a generally applicable rule of conduct, it is sharply distinguishable from the measures struck down in United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, supra, and Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, supra. United States Trust Co. involved New York and New Jersey statutes whose sole effect was to repeal a covenant that the two States had entered into with the holders of bonds issued by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Similarly, the statute at issue in Allied Structural Steel Co. directly “‘adjusted] the rights and responsibilities of contracting parties.’” 438 U. S., at 244, quoting United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, supra, at 22. The statute required a private employer that had contracted with its employees to provide pension benefits to pay additional benefits, beyond those it had agreed to provide, if it terminated the pension plan or closed a Minnesota office. Since the statute applied only to employers that had entered into pension agreements, its sole effect was to alter contractual duties. Cf. Worthen Co. v. Kavanaugh, 295 U. S. 56 (1935) (statute which drastically limited the remedies available to mortgagees held invalid under the Contract Clause).
Alabama’s power to prohibit oil and gas producers from passing the increase in the severance tax on to their purchasers is confirmed by several decisions of this Court rejecting Contract Clause challenges to state rate-setting schemes that displaced any rates previously established by contract. In Midland Realty Co. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 300 U. S. 109 (1937), it was held that a party to a long-term contract with a utility could not invoke the Contract Clause to obtain immunity from a state public service commission’s imposition of a rate for steam heating that was higher than the rate established in the contract. The Court declared that “the State has power to annul and supersede rates previously established by contract between utilities and their customers.” Id., at 113 (footnote omitted). In Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Public Service Cory., 248 U. S. 372 (1919), the Court rejected a Contract Clause challenge to an order of a state commission setting the rates that could be charged for supplying electric light and power, notwithstanding the effect of the order on pre-existing contracts. Accord, Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U. S. 251 (1932) (upholding law which barred private contract carriers from using the highways unless they charged rates which might exceed those they had contracted to charge).
Producers Transportation Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of California, 251 U. S. 228 (1920), is particularly instructive for present purposes. In that case the Court upheld an order issued by a state commission under a newly enacted statute empowering the commission to set the rates that could be charged by individuals or corporations offering to transport oil by pipeline. The Court rejected the contention of a pipeline owner that the statute could not override preexisting contracts:
“That some of the contracts... were entered into before the statute was adopted or the order made is not material. A common carrier cannot by making contracts for future transportation or by mortgaging its property or pledging its income prevent or postpone the exertion by the State of the power to regulate the carrier’s rates and practices. Nor does the contract clause of the Constitution interpose any obstacle to the exertion of that power.” Id., at 232.
There is no material difference between Producers Transportation Co. and the cases before us. If a party that has entered into a contract to transport oil is not immune from subsequently enacted state regulation of the rates that may be charged for such transportation, parties that have entered into contracts to sell oil and gas likewise are not immune from state regulation of the prices that may be charged for those commodities. And if the Contract Clause does not prevent a State from dictating the price that sellers may charge their customers, plainly it does not prevent a State from requiring that sellers absorb a tax increase themselves rather than pass it through to their customers. If one form of state regulation is permissible under the Contract Clause notwithstanding its incidental effect on pre-existing contracts, the other form of regulation must be permissible as well.
i — i
Finally, we reject appellants’ equal protection challenge to the pass-through prohibition and the royalty-owner exemption. Because neither of the challenged provisions adversely affects a fundamental interest, see, e. g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 336-342 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 629-631 (1969), or contains a classification based upon a suspect criterion, see, e. g., Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 372 (1971); McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 191-192 (1964), they need only be tested under the lenient standard of rationality that this Court has traditionally applied in considering equal protection challenges to regulation of economic and commercial matters. See, e. g., Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 451 U. S. 648, 668 (1981); Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U. S. 456, 461-463 (1981); Kotch v. Board of River Pilot Comm’rs, 330 U. S. 552, 564 (1947). Under that standard a statute will be sustained if the legislature could have reasonably concluded that the challenged classification would promote a legitimate state purpose. See, e. g., Western & Southern Life Ins. Co., supra, at 668; Clover Leaf Creamery Co., supra, at 461-462, 464.
We conclude that the measures at issue here pass muster under this standard. The pass-through prohibition plainly bore a rational relationship to the State’s legitimate purpose of protecting consumers from excessive prices. Similarly, we think the Alabama Legislature could have reasonably determined that the royalty-owner exemption would encourage investment in oil or gas production. Our conclusion with respect to the royalty-owner exemption is reinforced by the fact that that provision is solely a tax measure. As we recently stated in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U. S. 540, 547 (1983), “[legislatures have especially broad latitude in creating classifications and distinctions in tax statutes.” See Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356, 359 (1973); Allied Stores of Ohio v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522, 526-527 (1959).
V
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the application of the pass-through prohibition to sales of gas in interstate commerce was pre-empted by federal law, but we uphold both the pass-through prohibition and the royalty-owner exemption against appellants’ challenges under the Contract Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Since the sever-ability of the pass-through prohibition from the remainder of the 1979 amendments is a matter of state law, we remand to the Supreme Court of Alabama for that court to determine whether the partial invalidity of the pass-through prohibition entitles appellants to a refund of some or all of the taxes paid under protest. See n. 6, supra. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The amount of tax that is due and payable constitutes “a first lien upon any of the oil or gas so produced when in the possession of the original producer or any purchaser of such oil or gas in its unmanufactured state or condition.” §40-20-3(a).
Appellants in No. 81-1020 are Exxon Corp., Gulf Oil Corp., and the Louisiana Land and Exploration Co. Appellants in No. 81-1268 are Exchange Oil and Gas Corp., Getty Oil Co., and Union Oil Co. of California.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2.
Although appellants in No. 81-1268 also contend that the application of the pass-through prohibition to oil was pre-empted by the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 (EPAA), 16 U. S. C. § 751 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, we conclude that we have no jurisdiction to consider this contention. The decision below does not discuss this issue, and when “ ‘the highest state court has failed to pass upon a federal question, it will be assumed that the omission was due to want of proper presentation in the state courts, unless the aggrieved party in this Court can affirmatively show the contrary.’ ” Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U. S. 40, 50, n. 11 (1974), quoting Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 582 (1969). No such showing has been made here. Although appellants in No. 81-1268 have represented to this Court that the trial court held the pass-through prohibition to be pre-empted by the EPAA, Juris. Statement 3, an examination of the trial court opinion reveals that in fact the court made no mention of the EPAA.. Nor does anything in the record before us indicate that this issue was raised in the trial court. Appellants did address the EPAA in their brief before the Supreme Court of Alabama, Brief for Appellees Exchange Oil and Gas Corp., Getty Oil Co., Placid Oil Co., Union Oil Co. of California in No. 79-823, pp. 51-53, but that court did not pass on the issue. Under these circumstances we have no jurisdiction to consider whether the EPAA pre-empted the application of the pass-through prohibition to oil, for it does not affirmatively appear that that issue was decided below. Bailey v. Anderson, 326 U. S. 203, 206-207 (1945). The general practice of the Alabama appellate courts is not to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See, e. g., State v. Newberry, 336 So. 2d 181, 182 (Ala. 1976); State v. Graf, 280 Ala. 71, 72, 189 So. 2d 912, 913 (1966); Burton v. Burton, 379 So. 2d 617, 618 (Civ. App. 1980); Crews v. Houston County Dept. of Pensions & Security, 358 So. 2d 451, 455 (Civ. App.), cert. denied, 358 So. 2d 456 (Ala. 1978).
Appellants in No. 81-1268 have also burdened this Court with a labored argument that they were denied due process by the Supreme Court of Alabama’s refusal to consider the legislative history of the 1979 amendments to the state severance tax, a history which, according to appellants, shows that those amendments were intended to apply only to certain wells located in one county in the State and not to apply statewide. Suffice it to say that the weight to be given to the legislative history of an Alabama statute is a matter of Alabama law to be determined by the Supreme Court of Alabama.
See 404 So. 2d, at 6:
“Nowhere in that section [§ 110(a) of the NGPA] is it stated that the oil companies are entitled to ‘pass-through’ increases on state severance taxes. Rather, the Act merely provides that the lawful ceiling on the first sale at the wellhead may be raised if a severance tax is imposed by the states. The two Acts are aimed at entirely different purposes. In other words, although it would be perfectly permissible for the oil and gas companies to raise the price for the first sale of natural gas, subject to the limitations of the Natural Gas Policy Act, all that Act No. 79-434 requires is that the increase in severance tax mandated by that Act be borne by the producer or severer of the oil or gas.”
Relying on this passage, appellee Commissioner of Revenue contends that the pass-through prohibition did not bar a producer from increasing its price by an amount equal to the increase in the severance tax, provided that the producer did not label that increase a tax:
“The Commissioner believes that the seller may include in the lawful maximum price an amount equal to Alabama’s severance taxes borne by the seller resulting from the production of natural gas. The Commissioner believes that it was the intent of the Alabama Legislature in adopting the pass-through prohibition that it did not want to be perceived as levying an additional tax on the consumer. Therefore it prohibited anyone from passing along the increase levied by Act 79-434 as a tax.” Brief for Appellee Eagerton 16-17 (emphasis in original).
We do not agree with appellee that the Supreme Court of Alabama interpreted the pass-through prohibition to leave sellers free to pass through the tax increase so long as they did not tell their customers that that is what they were doing. The statute contains no language that would suggest this limitation, and as we understand the opinion below, the point of the passage relied upon by appellee was only that the pass-through prohibition did not conflict with federal law.
Although the United States and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in their amicus brief point to the statement in the Conference Report that “[a]Il ceiling prices under this Act are exclusive of State severance taxes borne by the seller... H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1752, p. 90 (1978), we do not see how this statement supports their position that the pass-through prohibition was in conflict with § 110(a).
The parties stipulated that a substantial portion of the gas extracted by appellants was sold in interstate commerce. App. in No. 81-1020, pp. 78, 184-185. Because the trial court concluded that the pass-through prohibition was in conflict with § 110(a) of the NGPA, it did not determine how much of the taxes at issue in this case were levied on gas sold in intrastate and interstate commerce. If, on remand, when the Supreme Court of Alabama inquires into the question of severability, see infra, at 196-197, that court holds that the Alabama Legislature would have intended to impose the tax increase on the severance of gas if and only if the increase could not be passed through to consumers when the gas is sold, such a determination may have to be made.
We note that these cases do not involve any attempt by a State to prohibit gas producers from passing through the cost of a factor of production such as labor or machinery. Such a prohibition might raise additional considerations not present here because of the inducement it would create for producers to shift away from the factor of production to which the pass-through prohibition applied.
The Contract Clause provides that “No State shall... pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts....” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 10, cl. 1.
The contracts into which appellants had entered appear to entitle them to reimbursement from the royalty owners for a share of any severance tax paid by appellants in proportion to the royalty owners’ interest in the oil or gas, regardless of whether state law imposes that tax on the producer or on the royalty owner. Appellants cite the following contractual provisions as typical of the agreements which they contend are impaired by the royalty-owner exemption:
“Lessor shall bear and pay, and there shall be deducted from the royalties due hereunder, Lessor’s proportionate royalty share of:
“(a) All applicable severance, production and other such taxes levied or imposed upon production from the leased premises.” App. in No. 81-1020, pp. 76-77.
“LESSOR AND LESSEE shall bear in proportion to their respective participation in the production hereunder, all taxes levied on minerals covered hereby or any part thereof, or on the severance or production thereof, and all increases... in taxes on the lease premises or any part thereof.” Id., at 184.
These provisions would seem to entitle appellants to recover from the royalty owners a portion of the tax increase in proportion to the royalty owners’
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Respondents, students of the California School for the Blind, brought this lawsuit in Federal District Court against petitioner state officials, claiming among other things that the school’s physical plant did not meet applicable seismic safety standards. Their complaint alleged rights of action under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 89 Stat. 773, 20 U. S. C. §§ 1232, 1401, 1405, 1406, 1411-1420, 1453, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 394, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 794. After a lengthy trial the District Court issued a “preliminary injunction” requiring the State to conduct additional tests of school grounds to aid in assessment of the school’s seismic safety. Petitioners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(a)(1). That court affirmed the issuance of the preliminary injunction on the ground that the lower court had not abused its discretion. 736 F. 2d 538 (1984). The court expressly noted that it was not finally deciding the merits of the action, but only was assessing the District Court’s reasoning to determine whether it had appropriately applied the traditional calculus for granting or denying preliminary injunctions. Id., at 542-543, 546-547, 550.
Petitioners have petitioned this Court for a writ of cer-tiorari to review the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, but in the meantime the tests ordered by the District Court’s preliminary injunction have been completed. We therefore are confronted with a situation nearly identical to that addressed in University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U. S. 390 (1981), in which the petitioners had completely complied with the terms of a preliminary injunction by the time the case reached this Court. In Camenisch we concluded that “the question whether a preliminary injunction should have been issued here is moot, because the terms of the injunction . . . have been fully and irrevocably carried out.” Id., at 398. Because only that aspect of the lawsuit was moot, however, we merely vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Ibid. Here, as in Camenisch, the only question of law actually ruled on by the Court of Appeals was whether the District Court abused its discretion in applying the complicated calculus for determining whether the preliminary injunction should have issued, an issue now moot. No order of this Court could affect the parties’ rights with respect to the injunction we are called upon to review. Other claims for relief, however, still remain to be resolved by the District Court. We accordingly grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with instructions to remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Justice Powell 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:
|
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 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.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants are testamentary trustees of George H. Warren, who died a resident of New York. His will was duly probated in that state and letters testamentary issued to appellants as executors. A duly authenticated copy of said will was filed and recorded in Rhode Island and there letters testamentary were also issued. Letters of trusteeship were granted to appellants by a surrogate’s court in New York. None were needed or asked for or granted by Rhode Island. At all times pertinent to this appeal, appellants, as trustees under the will, held intangible personalty for the benefit of Constance W. Warren for her life and then to certain as yet undetermined future beneficiaries.
The evidences of the intangible property in the estate of George H. Warren and in the trust in question were at all times in New York. The life beneficiary and one of the trustees are residents of New York. The other trustee resides in Rhode Island. During the period in question, he did not, however, exercise his powers, as trustee, in Rhode Island.
A personal property tax of $50 was assessed by the City of Newport, Rhode Island, against the resident trustee upon one-half of the value of the corpus of the trust. The applicable assessment statute for ad valorem taxes appears in the margin. At the time of this assessment, the property consisted of 500 shares of the capital stock of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. The tax was paid by the trustees and this suit instituted, under appropriate state procedure, in the Superior Court of the County of Newport to recover the tax from the city. The Superior Court by decision denied the petition. A bill of exceptions was prosecuted by these petitioners to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island which overruled the exceptions and remitted the case to the superior court. Thereupon judgment was entered for the appellees and an appeal allowed to this Court. All questions of state procedure and of the applicability of the state statute to the resident trustee in the circumstances of this case were foreclosed for us by the rulings of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
The appellants’ contention throughout has been that the Rhode Island statute, under which the assessment was made, if applicable to the resident trustee, was unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Their objection in the state courts and here is that Rhode Island cannot tax the resident trustee’s proportionate part of these trust intangibles merely because that trustee resides in Rhode Island. Such a tax, they urge, is unconstitutional under the due process clause because it exacts payment measured by the value of property wholly beyond the reach of Rhode Island’s power and to which that state does not give protection or benefit. Appellants specifically disclaim reliance upon the argument that the Rhode Island tax exposes them to the danger of other ad valorem taxes in another state. The same concession was made in the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. We therefore restrict our discussion and determination to the issue presented by appellants’ insistence that Rhode Island cannot constitutionally collect this tax because the state rendered no equivalent for its exaction in protection of or benefit to the trust fund.
For the purpose of the taxation of those resident within her borders, Rhode Island has sovereign power unembarrassed by any restriction except those that emerge from the Constitution. Whether that power is exercised wisely or unwisely is the problem of each state. It may well be that sound fiscal policy would be promoted by a tax upon trust intangibles levied only by the state that is the seat of a testamentary trust. Or, it may be that the actual domicile of the trustee should be preferred for a single tax. Utilization by the states of modern reciprocal statutory tax provisions may more fairly distribute tax benefits and burdens, although the danger of competitive inducements for obtaining a settlor’s favor are obvious. But our question here is whether or not a provision of the Constitution forbids this tax. Neither the expediency of the levy nor its economic effect on the economy of the taxing state is for our consideration. We are dealing with the totality of a state’s authority in the exercise of its revenue raising powers.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been held to place a limit on a state’s power to lay an ad valorem tax on its residents. Previous decisions of this Court have held that mere power over a resident does not permit a state to exact from him a property tax on his tangible property permanently located outside the jurisdiction of the taxing state. Such an exaction, the cases teach, would violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because no benefit or protection, adequate to support a tax exaction, is furnished by the state of residence. The domiciliary state of the owner of tangibles permanently located in another state, however, may require its resident to contribute to the government under which he lives by an income tax in which the income from the out-of-state property is an item of the taxpayer’s gross income. It is immaterial, in such a case, that the property producing the income is located in another state. New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U. S. 308. And, where the tangible property of a corporation has no taxable situs outside the domiciliary state, that state may tax the tangibles because the corporation exists under the law of its domicile. Southern Pacific Co. v. Kentucky, 222 U. S. 63.
The precedents, holding it unconstitutional for a state to tax tangibles of a resident that are permanently beyond its boundaries, have not been applied to intangibles where the documents of owner interest are beyond the confines of the taxing jurisdiction or where the choses in action are mere promises of a nonresident without - documents. One reason that state taxation of a resident on his intangibles is justified is that when the taxpayer’s wealth is represented by intangibles, the tax gatherer has difficulty in locating them and there is uncertainty as to which taxing district affords benefits or protection to the actual property that the intangibles represent. There may be no “papers.” If the assessment is not made at the residence of the owner, intangibles may be overlooked easily by other assessors of taxes. A state is dependent upon its citizens for revenue. Wealth has long been accepted as a fair measure of a tax assessment. As a practical mode of collecting revenue, the states unrestricted by the federal Constitution have been accustomed to assess property taxes upon intangibles “wherever actually held or deposited,” belonging to their citizens and regardless of the location of the debtor. So long as a state chooses to tax the value of intangibles as a part of a taxpayer’s wealth, the location of the evidences of ownership is immaterial. If the location of the documents was controlling, their transfer to another jurisdiction would defeat the tax of the domiciliary state. As a matter of fact, there .is more reason for the domiciliary state of the owner of the intangibles than for any other taxing jurisdiction to collect a property tax on the intangibles. Since the intangibles themselves have no real situs, the domicile of the owner is the nearest approximation, although other taxing jurisdictions may also have power to tax the same intangibles. Normally the intangibles are subject to the immediate control of the owner. This close relationship between the intangibles and the owner furnishes an adequate basis for the tax on the owner by the state of his residence as against any attack for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state of the owner’s residence supplies the owner with the benefits and protection inherent in the existence of an organized government. He may choose to expand his activities beyond its borders but the state of his residence is his base of operations. It is the place where he exercises certain privileges of citizenship and enjoys the protection of his domiciliary government. Does a similar relationship exist between a trustee and the intangibles of a trust?
The trustee of today moves freely from state to state. The settlor’s residence may be one state, the seat of a trust another state and the trustee or trustees may live in still another jurisdiction or may constantly change their residence. The official life of a trustee is, of course, different from his personal. A trust, this Court has said, is “an abstraction.” For federal income tax purposes it is sometimes dealt with as though it had a separate existence. Anderson v. Wilson, 289 U. S. 20, 27. This is because Congress has seen fit so to deal with the trust. This entity, the trust, from another point of view consists of separate interests, the equitable interest in the res of the beneficiary and the legal interest of the trustee. The legal interest of the trustee in the res is a distinct right. It enables a settlor to protect his beneficiaries from the burdens of ownership, while the beneficiary retains the right, through equity, to compel the legal owner to act in accordance with his trust obligations. The trustee as the owner of this legal interest in the res may incur obligations in the administration of the trust enforceable against him, personally. Nothing else appearing, the trustee is personally liable at law for contracts for the trust. This is the rule in Rhode Island. Specific performance may be decreed against him. Of course, the trustee when acting within his powers for the trust is entitled to exoneration or reimbursement and the trust res may be pursued in equity by the creditor for payment.
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island considered the argument that the laws of the state afforded no benefit or protection to the resident trustee. Although nothing appeared as to any specific benefit or protection which the trustee had actually received, it concluded that the state was “ready, willing and capable” of furnishing either “if requested.” A resident trustee of a foreign trust would be entitled to the same advantages from Rhode Island laws as would any natural person there resident. Greenough v. Tax Assessors, supra, 488, 47 A. 2d at 631. There may be matters of trust administration which can be litigated only in the courts of the state that is the seat of the trust. For example, in the case of a testamentary trust, the appointment of trustees, settlement, termination and distribution under the provisions of the trust are to be carried out, normally, in the courts of decedent’s domicile. See Harrison v. Commissioner of Corporations, 272 Mass. 422, 427, 172 N. E. 605, 608. But when testamentary trustees reside outside of the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of the seat of the trust, third parties dealing with the trustee on trust matters or beneficiaries may need to proceed directly against the trustee as an individual for matters arising out of his relation to the trust. Or the resident trustee may need the benefit of the Rhode Island law to enforce trust claims against a Rhode Island resident. As the trustee is a citizen of Rhode Island, the federal courts would not be open to the trustee for such causes of action where the federal jurisdiction depended upon diversity. The citizenship of the trustee and not the seat of the trust or the residence of the beneficiary is the controlling factor. The trustee is suable like any other obligor. There is no provision of the federal Constitution which forbids suits in state courts against a resident trustee of a trust created under the laws of a sister state. Consequently, we must conclude that Rhode Island does offer benefit and protection through its law to the resident trustee as the owner of intangibles. And, while it may logically be urged that these benefits and protection are no more than is offered a resident owner of land or chattels, permanently out of the state, the same reasons, hereinbefore stated on pages 492 and 493, apply that permit state property taxation of a resident owner of intangibles while denying a state power to tax similarly the resident’s out-of-state realty.
No precedent from this Court called to our attention indicates that the federal Constitution contains provisions that forbid taxation by a state of intangibles in the hands of a resident testamentary trustee. In Brooke v. Norfolk, 277 U. S. 27, the state property tax there invalidated, evidently as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment, was assessed to a life beneficiary, on a res, composed of intangibles, when both the testator and the trustee were residents of another state where the trust was administered. Safe Deposit and Trust Company v. Virginia, 280 U. S. 83, held invalid a state’s tax on a trust’s intangibles, actually in the hands of the nonresident trustee and not subject to the control of the equitable owner, because it was an attempt to tax the trust res, intangibles actually in the hands of a nonresident trustee. This was said to conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment as a tax on a thing beyond the jurisdiction of the taxing state. See also Graves v. Schmidlapp, 315 U. S. 657, 663, where the sovereign power of taxation was held to extend to a state resident who by will disposed of intangibles held by him as trustee with power of testamentary disposition under a nonresident trust. Nothing in these cases leads to the conclusion that a state may not tax intangibles in the hands of a resident trustee of an out-of-state trust.
State courts construe their statutes according to their understanding of state policy and apply them to such situations as their interpretation of the statutory language requires. In so adjudging, they are the final judicial authority upon the meaning of their state law. It is only in circumstances where their judgments collide with rights secured by the federal Constitution that we have power to protect or enforce the federal rights. In adjudging the taxability under state law of a resident trustee’s ownership of intangibles, without reliance upon the residence of settlor or beneficiary or the location of the intangibles, various conclusions have been reached under state law and without regard to the Constitution of the United States. They are pertinent to our problem only as illustrations of the different viewpoints of state law.
Nor do we think it constitutionally significant that the Rhode Island trustee is not the sole trustee of the New York trust. The assessment, as the statute in question required, was only upon his proportionate interest, as a trustee, in the res. Whatever may have been the character of his title to the intangibles or the limitations on his sole administrative power over the trust, the resident trustee was the possessor of an interest in the intangibles, sufficient, as we have explained, to support a proportional tax for the benefit and protection afforded to that interest by Rhode Island.
Affirmed.
General Laws of Rhode Island (1938), c. 30, § 9:
“Fifth. Intangible personal property held in trust by any executor, administrator, or trustee, whether under an express or implied trust, the income of which is to be paid to any other person, shall be taxed to such executor, administrator, or trustee in the town where such other person resides; but if such other person resides out of the state, then in the town where the executor, administrator, or trustee resides; and if there be more than one such executor, administrator, or trustee, then in equal proportions to each of such executors, administrators, and trustees in the towns where they respectively reside.”
General Laws of Rhode Island (1938), c. 31, §14; c. 545, §6, as amended by c. 941, Public Laws of Rhode Island (1939-40); Greenough v. Tax Assessors, 71 R. I. 477, 47 A. 2d 625.
Chase Securities Corporation v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304, 311; see Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U. S. 232, 237; American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582, 595.
See McKinney’s Consolidated Laws of New York, Tax Law, §§ 3, 350 (7), 365, 369, 377. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U. S. 54. Compare Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189; Curry v. McCanless, 307 U. S. 357, 363; Graves v. Elliott, 307 U. S. 383; Graves v. Schmidlapp, 315 U. S. 657; State Tax Comm’n v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, 177, with Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota, 280 U. S. 204; First National Bank v. Maine, 284 U. S. 312.
Greenough v. Tax Assessors, 71 R. I. 477, 488, 47 A. 2d 625, 631.
Compare Harrison v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation, 272 Mass. 422, 172 N. E. 605.
Compare Mr. Justice Holmes’ dissent, Baldwin v. Missouri, 281 U. S. 586, 595.
State Tax Comm’n v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, 181.
See Lawrence v. State Tax Comm’n, 286 U. S. 276, 279. Art. I, § 10, cl. 2 and 3, contain limitations on a state's power to levy import or export or tonnage duties.
Union Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U. S. 194, 202; Frick v. Pennsylvania, 268 U. S. 473, 488; Cream of Wheat Co. v. Grand Forks, 253 U. S. 325, 328-29; Curry v. McCanless, 307 U. S. 357, 363-65, and note 3; see Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 444; State Tax Comm’n v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, 178.
Even where our cases have spoken of power over the person as though it alone might be a sufficient justification for ad valorem taxation of a resident on tangibles outside the taxing jurisdiction, the language was used in instances where there were other bases for the tax. State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 319; Southern Pacific Co. v. Kentucky, 222 U. S. 63, 76; Pearson v. McGraw, 308 U. S. 313, 318.
See discussion in Northwest Airlines v. Minnesota, 322 U. S. 292.
Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491; Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U. S. 54; compare Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U. S. 1, 8-12; Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U. S. 12; Curry v. McCanless, 307 U. S. 357, 365-68; Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 444; State Tax Comm’n v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, 180.
Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491. Compare New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U. S. 308.
See Curry v. McCanless, 307 U. S. 357, 365-68; Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U. S. 193. Certain evidences of indebtedness have been held sufficient in themselves to justify a state’s imposition of a succession tax upon their nonresident owner. Wheeler v. New York, 233 U. S. 434.
See Hutchison v. Ross, 262 N. Y. 381, 393, 187 N. E. 65, 70.
Brown v. Fletcher, 235 U. S. 589, 598-600; Blair v. Commissioner, 300 U.S. 5, 13.
Scott, Trusts (1939), pp. 487, 1469 et seq.; Williston, Contracts (1936) §312; Bogert, Trusts and Trustees (1935) §146.
Duvall v. Craig, 2 Wheat. 45, 56; Taylor v. Davis, 110 U. S. 330, 335: “A trustee may be defined generally as a person in whom some estate, interest, or power in or affecting property is vested for the benefit of another. When an agent contracts in the name of his principal, the principal contracts and is bound, but the agent is not. When a trustee contracts as such, unless he is bound no one is bound, for he has no principal. The trust estate cannot promise; the contract is therefore the personal undertaking of the trustee. As a trustee holds the estate, although only with the power and for the purpose of managing it, he is personally bound by the contracts he makes as trustee, even when designating himself as such.”
Lazenby v. Codman, 28 F. Supp. 949; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Land Estates, 31 F. Supp. 845; Peyser v. American Security & Trust Co., 107 F. 2d 625.
Roger Williams N. Bk. v. Groton Manufacturing Co., 16 R. I. 504, 17 A. 170.
Warren v. Goodloe’s Executor, 230 Ky. 514, 520, 20 S. W. 2d 278, 281.
Scott, Trusts, § 244 et seq. and § 268.
Scott, Trusts, § 267 et seq. See Ballentine v. Eaton, 297 Mass. 389, 8 N. E. 2d 808; O’Brien v. Jackson, 167 N. Y. 81, 60 N. E. 238.
Bullard v. Cisco, 290 U. S. 179, 190. See Memphis Street R. Co. v. Moore, 243 U. S. 299.
The power of a state to tax the equitable interest of a beneficiary in such circumstances was not presented. Id., pp. 92 and 95.
Goodsite v. Lane, 139 F. 593 (C. C. A. 6tli), holds that a state property tax on a trustee’s intangibles for the sole reason that he resides in the taxing state is invalid. It would seem this was so decided because of the Fourteenth Amendment. We do not think this case gives proper recognition to the state’s power to tax the owner of the legal title to the res.
The state statute taxing property to the trustee validly applies to the resident trustee: Welch v. City of Boston, 221 Mass. 155, 109 N. E. 174; Harvard Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 284 Mass. 225, 230, 187 N. E. 596, 598; Mackay v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 678, 61 P. 382; Millsapsw. Jackson, 78 Miss. 537, 30 So. 756; McLellan v. Concord, 78 N. H. 89, 97 A. 552; Florida v. Beardsley, 77 Fla. 803, 82 So. 794.
The state tax statute is inapplicable to the resident trustee: Dorrance’s Estate, 333 Pa. 162, 3 A. 2d 682; Commonwealth v. Peebles, 134 Ky. 121, 135, 119 S. W. 774, 778; Darrow v. Coleman, 119 N. Y. 137, 23 N. E. 488; Rand v. Pittsfield, 70 N. H. 530, 49 A. 88. Newcomb v. Paige, 224 Mass. 516, 113 N. E. 458, and Harrison v. Commissioner, 272 Mass. 422, 172 N. E. 605, declined taxation on the ground of comity and thus distinguished Welch v. City of Boston, supra, 272 Mass. 428-29, 172 N. E. 609.
Scott, Trusts, §§ 88.1, 103; Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, § 145.
Scott, Trusts, § 194; Brennan v. Willson, 71 N. Y. 502; Fritz v. City Trust Co., 72 App. Div. 532, 76 N. Y. S. 625, aff. 173 N. Y. 622, 66 N. E. 1109; In re Campbell’s Estate, 171 Misc. 750, 13 N. Y. S. 2d 773.
The state courts have reached varying conclusions under their statutes: See People ex rel. Beaman v. Feitner, 168 N. Y. 360, 61 N. E. 280; Mackay v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 678, 61 P. 382; McLellan v. Concord, 78 N. H. 89, 97 A. 552; Dorrance’s Estate, 333 Pa. 162, 3 A. 2d 682; Newcomb v. Paige, 224 Mass. 516, 113 N. E. 458; Harrison v. Commissioner, 272 Mass. 422, 430-31, 172 N. E. 605, 609-10.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
At a hearing before his criminal trial in a Missouri court, the respondent, Willie McCurry, invoked the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to suppress evidence that had been seized by the police. The trial court denied the suppression motion in part, and McCurry was subsequently convicted after a jury trial. The conviction was later affirmed on appeal. State v. McCurry, 587 S. W. 2d 337 (Mo. App. 1979). Because he did not assert that the state courts had denied him a “full and fair opportunity” to litigate his search and seizure claim, McCurry was barred by this Court’s decision in Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, from seeking a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court. Nevertheless, he sought federal-court redress for the alleged constitutional violation by bringing a damages suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against the officers who had entered his home and seized the evidence in question. We granted certiorari to consider whether the unavailability of federal habeas corpus prevented the police officers from raising the state courts’ partial rejection of McCurry’s constitutional claim as a collateral estoppel defense to the § 1983 suit against them for damages. 444 TJ. S. 1070.
I
In April 1977, several undercover police officers, following an informant’s tip that McCurry was dealing in heroin, went to his house in St. Louis, Mo., to attempt a purchase. Two officers, petitioners Allen and Jacobsmeyer, knocked on the front door, while the other officers hid nearby. When McCurry opened the door, the two officers asked to buy some heroin “caps.” McCurry went back into the house and returned soon thereafter, firing a pistol at and seriously wounding Allen and Jacobsmeyer. After a gun battle with the other officers and their reinforcements, McCurry retreated into the house; he emerged again when the police demanded that he surrender. Several officers then entered the house without a warrant, purportedly to search for other persons inside. One of the officers seized drugs and other contraband that lay in plain view, as well as additional contraband he found in dresser drawers and in auto tires on the porch.
McCurry was charged with possession of heroin and assault with intent to kill. At the pretrial suppression hearing, the trial judge excluded the evidence seized from the dresser drawers and tires, but denied suppression of the evidence found in plain view. McCurry was convicted of both the heroin and assault offenses.
McCurry subsequently filed the present § 1983 action for $1 million in damages against petitioners Allen and Jacobs-meyer, other unnamed individual police officers, and the city of St. Louis and its police department. The complaint alleged a conspiracy to violate McCurry’s Fourth Amendment rights, an unconstitutional search and seizure of his house, and an assault on him by unknown police officers after he had been arrested and handcuffed. The petitioners moved for summary judgment. The District Court apparently understood the gist of the complaint to be the allegedly unconstitutional search and seizure and granted summary judgment, holding that collateral estoppel prevented McCurry from relitigating the search-and-seizure question already decided against him in the state courts. 466 F. Supp. 514 (ED Mo. 1978).
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case for trial. 606 F. 2d 795 (CA8 1979). The appellate court said it was not holding that collateral estoppel was generally inapplicable in a § 1983 suit raising issues determined against the federal plaintiff in a state criminal trial. Id., at 798. But noting that Stone v. Powell, supra, barred McCurry from federal habeas corpus relief, and invoking “the special role of the federal courts in protecting civil rights,” 606 F. 2d, at 799, the court concluded that the § 1983 suit was McCurry’s only route to a federal forum for his constitutional claim and directed the trial court to allow him to proceed to trial unencumbered by collateral estoppel.
II
The federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351, 352. Under collateral estop-pel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case. Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147, 153. As this Court and other courts have often recognized, res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication. Id., at 153-154.
In recent years, this Court has reaffirmed the benefits of collateral estoppel in particular, finding the policies underlying it to apply in contexts not formerly recognized at common law. Thus, the Court has eliminated the requirement of mutuality in applying collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of issues decided earlier in federal-court suits, Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, and has allowed a litigant who was not a party to a federal case to use collateral estoppel “offensively” in a new federal suit against the party who lost on the decided issue in the first case, Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U. S. 322. But one general limitation the Court has repeatedly recognized is that the concept of collateral estoppel cannot apply when the party against whom the earlier decision is asserted did not have a “full and fair opportunity” to litigate that issue in the earlier case. Montana v. United States, supra, at 153; Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, supra, at 328-329.
The federal courts generally have also consistently accorded preclusive effect to issues decided by state courts. E. g., Montana v. United States, supra; Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183. Thus, res judicata and collateral estoppel not only reduce unnecessary litigation and foster reliance on adjudication, but also promote the comity between state and federal courts that has been recognized as a bulwark of the federal system. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 43-45.
Indeed, though the federal courts may look to the common law or to the policies supporting res judicata and collateral estoppel in assessing the preclusive effect of decisions of other federal courts, Congress has specifically required all federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments whenever the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged would do so:
“[J]udicial proceedings [of any court of any State] shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State . . . 28 U. S. C. § 1738.
Huron Holding Corp. v. Lincoln Mine Operating Co., 312 U. S. 183, 193; Davis v. Davis, 305 U. S. 32, 40. It is against this background that we examine the relationship of § 1983 and collateral estoppel, and the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case.
Ill
This Court has never directly decided whether the rules of res judicata and collateral estoppel are generally applicable to § 1983 actions. But in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 497, the Court noted with implicit approval the view of other federal courts that res judicata principles fully apply to civil rights suits brought under that statute. See also Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592, 606, n. 18; Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 554, n. 12. And the virtually unanimous view of the Courts of Appeals since Preiser has been that § 1983 presents no categorical bar to the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel concepts. These federal appellate court decisions have spoken with little explanation or citation in assuming the compatibility of § 1983 and rules of preclusion, but the statute and its legislative history clearly support the courts’ decisions.
Because the requirement of mutuality of estoppel was still alive in the federal courts until well into this century, see Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, supra, at 322-323, the drafters of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, of which § 1983 is a part, may have had less reason to concern themselves with rules of preclusion than a modern Congress would. Nevertheless, in 1871 res judicata and collateral estoppel could certainly have applied in federal suits following state-court litigation between the same parties or their privies, and nothing in the language of § 1983 remotely expresses any congressional intent to contravene the common-law rules of preclusion or to repeal the express statutory requirements of the predecessor of 28 U. S. C. § 1738, see n. 8, supra. Section 1983 creates a new federal cause of action. It says nothing about the preclusive effect of state-court judgments.
Moreover, the legislative history of § 1983 does not in any clear way suggest that Congress intended to repeal or restrict the traditional doctrines of preclusion. The main goal of the Act was to override the corrupting influence of the Ku Klux Klan and its sympathizers on the governments and law enforcement agencies of the Southern States, see Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 174, and of course the debates show that one strong motive behind its enactment was grave congressional concern that the state courts had been deficient in protecting federal rights, Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 241-242; Monroe v. Pape, supra, at 180. But in the context of the legislative history as a whole, this congressional concern lends only the most equivocal support to any argument that, in cases where the state courts have recognized the constitutional claims asserted and provided fair procedures for determining them, Congress intended to override § 1738 or the common-law rules of collateral estoppel and res judicata. Since repeals by implication are disfavored, Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148, 154, much clearer support than this would be required to hold that § 1738 and the traditional rules of preclusion are not applicable to § 1983 suits.
As the Court has understood the history of the legislation, Congress realized that in enacting § 1983 it was altering the balance of judicial power between the state and federal courts. See Mitchum v. Foster, supra, at 241. But in doing so, Congress was adding to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, not subtracting from that of the state courts. See Monroe v. Pape, supra, at 183 (“The federal remedy is supplementary to the state remedy . . ,”). The debates contain several references to the concurrent jurisdiction of the state courts over federal questions, and numerous suggestions that the state courts would retain their established jurisdiction so that they could, when the then current political passions abated, demonstrate a new sensitivity to federal rights.
To the extent that it did intend to change the balance of power over federal questions between the state and federal courts, the 42d Congress was acting in a way thoroughly consistent with the doctrines of preclusion. In reviewing the legislative history of § 1983 in Monroe v. Pape, supra, the Court inferred that Congress had intended a federal remedy in three circumstances: where state substantive law was facially unconstitutional, where state procedural law was inadequate to allow full litigation of a constitutional claim, and where state procedural law, though adequate in theory, was inadequate in practice. 365 U. S., at 173-174. In short, the federal courts could step in where the state courts were unable or unwilling to protect federal rights. Id., at 176. This understanding of § 1983 might well support an exception to res judicata and collateral estoppel where state law did not provide fair procedures for the litigation of constitutional claims, or where a state court failed to even acknowledge the existence of the constitutional principle on which a litigant based his claim. Such an exception, however, would be essentially the same as the important general limit on rules of preclusion that already exists: Collateral estoppel does not apply where the party against whom an earlier court decision is asserted did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim or issue decided by the first court. See supra, at 95. But the Court’s view of § 1983 in Monroe lends no strength to any argument that Congress intended to allow relitigation of federal issues decided after a full and fair hearing in a state court simply because the state court’s decision may have been erroneous.
The Court of Appeals in this case acknowledged that every Court of Appeals that has squarely decided the question has held that collateral estoppel applies when § 1983 plaintiffs attempt to relitigate in federal court issues decided against them in state criminal proceedings. But the court noted that the only two federal appellate decisions invoking collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of Fourth Amendment claims decided adversely to the § 1983 plaintiffs in state courts came before this Court’s decision in Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465. It also noted that some of the decisions'holding collateral estoppel applicable to § 1983 actions were based at least in part on the estopped party’s access to another federal forum through habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals thus concluded that since Stone v. Powell had removed Mc-Curry’s right to a hearing of his Fourth Amendment claim in federal habeas corpus, collateral estoppel should not deprive him of a federal judicial hearing of that claim in a § 1983 suit.
Stone v. Powell does not provide a logical doctrinal source for the court’s ruling. This Court in Stone assessed the costs and benefits of the judge-made exclusionary rule within the boundaries of the federal courts’ statutory power to issue writs of habeas corpus, and decided that the incremental deterrent effect that the issuance of the writ in Fourth Amendment cases might have on police conduct did not justify the cost the writ imposed upon the fair administration of criminal justice. 428 U. S., at 489-496. The Stone decision concerns only the prudent exercise of federal-court jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 2254. It has no bearing on § 1983 suits or on the question of the preclusive effect of state-court judgments.
The actual basis of the Court of Appeals’ holding appears to be a generally framed principle that every person asserting a federal right is entitled to one unencumbered opportunity to litigate that right in a federal district court, regardless of the legal posture in which the federal claim arises. But the authority for this principle is difficult to discern. It cannot lie in the Constitution, which makes no such guarantee, but leaves the scope of the jurisdiction of the federal district courts to the wisdom of Congress. And no such authority is to be found in § 1983 itself. For reasons already discussed at length, nothing in the language or legislative history of § 1983 proves any congressional intent to deny binding effect to a state-court judgment or decision when the state court, acting within its proper jurisdiction, has given the parties a full and fair opportunity to litigate federal claims, and thereby has shown itself willing and able to protect federal rights. And nothing in the legislative history of § 1983 reveals any purpose to afford less deference to judgments in state criminal proceedings than to those in state civil proceedings. There is, in short, no reason to believe that Congress intended to provide a person claiming a federal right an unrestricted opportunity to relitigate an issue already decided in state court simply because the issue arose in a state proceeding in which he would rather not have been engaged at all.
Through § 1983, the 42d Congress intended to afford an opportunity for legal and equitable relief in a federal court for certain types of injuries. It is difficult to believe that the drafters of that Act considered it a substitute for a federal writ of habeas corpus, the purpose of which is not to redress civil injury, but to release the applicant from unlawful physical confinement, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S., at 484; Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 399, n. 5, particularly in light of the extremely narrow scope of federal habeas relief for state prisoners in 1871.
The only other conceivable basis for finding a universal right to litigate a federal claim in a federal district court is hardly a legal basis at all, but rather a general distrust of the capacity of the state courts to render correct decisions on constitutional issues. It is ironic that Stone v. Powell provided the occasion for the expression of such an attitude in the present litigation, in view of this Court’s emphatic reaffirmation in that case of the constitutional obligation of the state courts to uphold federal law, and its expression of confidence in their ability to do so. 428 U. S., at 493-494, n. 35; see Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624, 637 (Harlan, J.).
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that McCurry’s inability to obtain federal habeas corpus relief upon his Fourth Amendment claim renders the doctrine of collateral estoppel inapplicable to his § 1983 suit. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The facts are drawn from the Court of Appeals’ opinion. 606 F. 2d 795 (CA8 1979).
The merits of the Fourth Amendment claim are discussed in the opinion of the Missouri Court of Appeals. State v. McCurry, 587 S. W. 2d 337 (1979). The state courts upheld the entry of the house as a reasonable response to emergency circumstances, but held illegal the seizure of any evidence discovered as a result of that entry except what was in plain view. Id., at 340. McCurry therefore argues here that even if the doctrine of collateral estoppel generally applies to this case, he should be able to proceed to trial to obtain damages for the part of the seizure declared illegal by the state courts. The petitioners contend, on the other hand, that the complaint alleged essentially an illegal entry, adding that only the entry could possibly justify the $1 million prayer. Since the state courts upheld the entry, the petitioners argue that if collateral estoppel applies here at all, it removes from trial all issues except the alleged assault. The United States Court of Appeals, however, addressed only the broad question of the applicability of collateral estoppel to § 1983 suits brought by plaintiffs in McCurry’s circumstances, and questions as to the scope of collateral estoppel with respect to the particular issues in this case are not now before us.
Beyond holding that collateral estoppel does not apply in this case, the Court of Appeals noted that the District Court had overlooked the conspiracy and assault charges. 606 F. 2d, at 797, and n. 1.
Nevertheless, relying on the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, the Court of Appeals directed the District Court to abstain from conducting the trial until McCurry had exhausted his opportunities for review of his claim in the state appellate courts. 606 F. 2d, at 799.
The Restatement of Judgments now speaks of res judicata as “claim preclusion” and collateral estoppel as “issue preclusion.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments §74 (Tent. Draft No. 3, Apr. 15, 1976). Some courts and commentators use “res judicata” as generally meaning both forms of preclusion.
Contrary to a suggestion in the dissenting opinion, post, at 113, n. 12, this case does not involve the question whether a § 1983 claimant can litigate in federal court an issue he might have raised but did not raise in previous litigation.
In Blonder-Tongue the Court noted other trends in the state and federal courts expanding the preclusive effects of judgments, such as the broadened definition of “claim” in the context of res judicata and the greater preclusive effect given criminal judgments in subsequent civil cases. 402 U. S., at 326.
Other factors, of course, may require an exception to the normal rules of collateral estoppel in particular cases. E. g., Montana v. United States, 440 U. S., at 162 (unmixed questions of law in successive actions between the same parties on unrelated claims).
Contrary to the suggestion of the dissent, post, at 112-113, our decision today does not “fashion” any new, more stringent doctrine of collateral estoppel, nor does it hold that the collateral-estoppel effect of a state-court decision turns on the single factor of whether the State gave the federal claimant a full and fair opportunity to litigate a federal question. Our decision does not “fashion” any doctrine of collateral estoppel at all. Rather, it construes § 1983 to determine whether the conventional doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to the case at hand. It must be emphasized that the question whether any exceptions or qualifications within the bounds of that doctrine might ultimately defeat a collateral-estoppel defense in this case is not before us. See n. 2, supra.
This statute has existed in essentially unchanged form since its enactment just after the ratification of the Constitution, Act of May 26, 1790, ch. 11, 1 Stat. 122, and its re-enactment soon thereafter, Act of Mar. 27, 1804, ch. 56, 2 Stat. 298-299. Congress has also provided means for authenticating the records of the state proceedings to which the federal courts are to give full faith and credit. 28 U. S. C. § 1738.
The cases noted in Preiser applied res judicata to issues decided both in state civil proceedings, e. g., Coogan v. Cincinnati Bar Assn., 431 F. 2d 1209, 1211 (CA6 1970), and state criminal proceedings, e. g., Goss v. Illinois, 312 F. 2d 257, 259 (CA7 1963).
E. g., Robbins v. District Court, 592 F. 2d 1015 (CA8 1979); Jennings v. Caddo Parish School Bd., 531 F. 2d 1331 (CA5 1976); Lovely v. Laliberte, 498 F. 2d 1261 (CA1 1974); Brown v. Georgia Power Co., 491 F. 2d 117 (CA5 1974); Tang v. Appellate Division, 487 F. 2d 138 (CA2 1973).
A very few courts have suggested that the normal rules of claim preclusion should not apply in § 1983 suits in one peculiar circumstance: Where a § 1983 plaintiff seeks to litigate in federal court a federal issue which he could have raised but did not raise in an earlier state-court suit against the same adverse party. Graves v. Olgiati, 550 F. 2d 1327 (CA2 1977); Lombard v. Board of Ed. of New York City, 502 F. 2d 631 (CA2 1974); Mack v. Florida Bd. of Dentistry, 430 F. 2d 862 (CA5 1970). These cases present a narrow question not now before us, and we intimate no view as to whether they were correctly decided.
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” 42 U. S. C. § 1983.
It has been argued that, since there remains little federal common law after Erie B. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, to hold that the creation of a federal cause of action by itself does away with the rules of preclusion would take away almost all meaning from § 1738. Currie, Res Judicata: The Neglected Defense, 45 U. Chi. L. Rev. 317, 328 (1978).
By contrast, the roughly contemporaneous statute extending the federal writ of habeas corpus to state prisoners expressly rendered “null and void” any state-court proceeding inconsistent with the decision of a federal habeas court, Act of Feb. 5, 1867, ch. 28, § 1, 14 Stat. 385, 386 (current version at 28 U. S. C. §2254), and the modern habeas statute also expressly adverts to the effect of state-court criminal judgments by requiring the applicant for the writ to exhaust his state-court remedies, 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (b), and by presuming a state-court resolution of a factual issue to be correct except in eight specific circumstances, § 2254 (d). In any event, the traditional exception to res judicata for habeas corpus review, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 497, provides no analogy to § 1983 cases, since that exception finds its source in the unique purpose of habeas corpus — to release the applicant for the writ from unlawful confinement. Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1, 8.
See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374-376 (1871) (Rep. Lowe); id., at 394 (Rep. Rainey); id., at 653 (Sen. Osborn).
To the extent that Congress in the post-Civil War period did intend to deny full faith and credit to state-court decisions on constitutional issues, it expressly chose the very different means of postjudgment removal for state-court defendants whose civil rights were threatened by biased state courts and who therefore “are denied or cannot enforce [their civil rights] in the courts or judicial tribunals of the State.” Act of Apr. 9, 1866, ch. 31, § 3, 14 Stat. 27.
E. g., Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 514 (1871) (Rep. Poland); id., at 695 (Sen. Edmunds); see Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277, 283-284, n. 7 (noting that the state courts may entertain § 1983 claims, while reserving the question whether the state courts must do so).
Senator Edmunds, the floor manager of the bill in the Senate, observed at the end of the debates:
“The bill, like all bills of this character, in its first and second sections, is a declaration of rights and a provision for the punishment of conspiracies against constitutional rights, and a redress for wrongs. It does not undertake to overthrow any court. ... It does not undertake to interpose itself out of the regular order of the administration of law. It does not attempt to deprive any State of the honor which is due the punishment of crime. It is a law acting upon the citizen like every other law, and it is a law to be enforced by the courts through the regular and ordinary processes of judicial administration, and in no other way, until forcible resistance shall be offered to the quiet and ordinary course of justice.” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 697-698 (1871).
Representative Cobum expressed his belief that after passage of the Act “the tumbling and tottering States will spring up and resume the long-neglected administration of law in their own courts, giving, as they ought, themselves, equal protection to all.” Id., at 460. Representative Sheldon noted:
“Convenience and courtesy to the States suggest a sparing use [of national authority] and never so far as to supplant the State authority except in cases of extreme necessity, and when the State governments criminally refuse or neglect those duties which are imposed on them. ... It seems to me to be sufficient, and at the same time to be proper, to make a permanent law affording to every citizen a remedy in the United States courts for injuries to him in those rights declared and guaranteed by the Constitution. . . .” Id., at 368.
The dissent suggests, post, at 112, that the Court’s decision in England v. Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, demonstrates the impropriety of affording preclusive effect to the state-court decision in this case. The England decision is inapposite to the question before us. In the England case, a party first submitted to a federal court his claim that a state statute violated his constitutional rights. The federal court abstained and remitted the plaintiff to the state courts, holding that a state-court decision that the statute did not apply to the plaintiff would moot the federal question. Id., at 413. The plaintiff submitted both the state- and federal-law questions to the state courts, which decided both questions adversely to him. Id., at 414. This Court held that in such a circumstance, a plaintiff who properly reserved the federal issue by informing the state courts of his intention to return to federal court, if necessary, was not precluded from litigating the federal question in federal court. The holding in England depended entirely on this Court’s view of the purpose of abstention in such a case: Where a plaintiff properly invokes federal-court jurisdiciton in the first instance on a federal claim, the federal court has a duty to accept that jurisdiction. Id., at 415. Abstention may serve only to postpone, rather than to abdicate, jurisdiction, since its purpose is to determine whether resolution of the federal question is even necessary, or to obviate the risk of a federal court’s erroneous construction of state law. Id., at 416, and n. 7. These concerns have no bearing whatsoever on the present case.
E. g., Fernandez v. Trias Monge, 586 F. 2d 848, 854 (CA1 1978); Wiggins v. Murphy, 576 F. 2d 572, 573 (CA4 1978); Martin v. Delcambre, 578 F. 2d 1164, 1165 (CA5 1978); Winters v. Lavine, 574 F. 2d 46, 58 (CA2 1978); Metros v. United States District Court, 441 F. 2d 313 (CA10 1971); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F. 2d 1270, 1274 (CA3 1970); Mulligan v. Schlackter, 389 F. 2d 231, 233 (CA6 1968).
Dictum in Ney v. California, 439 F. 2d 1285, 1288 (CA9 1971), suggested that applying collateral estoppel in § 1983 actions might make the Civil Rights Act “a dead letter,” but in that case, because the state prosecutor had agreed to withdraw the evidence allegedly seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the state court had never decided the constitutional claim. In Brubaker v. King, 505 F. 2d 534, 537-538 (1974), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that since the issues in the state and federal eases were different — the legality of police conduct in the former and the good faith of the police in the latter — the state decision could not have preclusive effect in the federal court. This solution, however, fails to recognize that a state-court decision that the police acted legally cannot but foreclose a claim that they acted in bad faith. At least one Federal District Court has relied on the Brubaker case. Clark v. Lutcher, 436 F. Supp. 1266 (MD Pa. 1977).
Metros v. United States District Court, supra; Mulligan v. Schlachter, supra.
E. g., Rimmer v. Fayetteville Police Department, 567 F. 2d 273, 276 (CA4 1977); Thistlewaite v. City of New York, 497 F. 2d 339, 343 (CA2 1973); Alexander v. Emerson, 489 F. 2d 285, 286 (CA5 1973).
U. S. Const., Art. III.
The remarks of the proponents of § 1983 quoted in n. 16, supra, suggest the contrary. The Court of Appeals did not in any degree rest its holding on disagreement with the common view that judgments in criminal proceedings as well as in civil proceedings are entitled to preclusive effect. See, e. g., Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 340 U. S. 558.
The Court of Appeals did not suggest that the prospect of collateral estoppel in a § 1983 suit would deter a defendant in a state criminal ease from raising Fourth Amendment claims, and it is difficult to imagine a defendant risking conviction and imprisonment because he hoped to win a later civil judgment based upon an allegedly illegal search and seizure.
Under the modern statute, federal habeas corpus is bounded by a requirement of exhaustion of state remedies and by special procedural rules, 28 U. S. C. § 2254, which have no counterparts in § 1983, and which therefore demonstrate the continuing illogic of treating federal habeas and § 1983 suits as fungible remedies for constitutional violations.
We do not decide how the body of collateral-estoppel doctrine or 28 U. S. C. § 1738 should apply in this case. See n. 2, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Section 161(v) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 78 Stat. 606, 42 U. S. C. §2201(v), provides that the Department of Energy (DOE) shall restrict its enrichment of foreign-source uranium intended for use in domestic facilities “to the extent necessary to assure the maintenance of a viable domestic uranium industry.” DOE has determined that the domestic uranium industry has not been “viable” since 1983, and that the imposition of restrictions on the enrichment of foreign uranium would not assure viability. In this case we consider whether § 161(v) requires DOE to restrict the enrichment of foreign uranium, irrespective of whether such restriction would make the domestic industry viable. We conclude that it does not.
I — I
In 1964, as part of its efforts to move the nuclear-power industry into the private sector, Congress enacted the Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials Act (Act), Pub. L. 88-489, 78 Stat. 602, which amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to permit privately owned utilities operating nuclear reactors also to own, for the first time, the uranium used for fuel in their reactors. At the time of the statute’s enactment, DOE’s predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), was the only entity in the world with the facilities to convert natural uranium into the enriched uranium used for fuel in commercial reactors. In § 161(v), Congress accounted for this defacto monopoly by authorizing the AEC to offer “toll enrichment” services whereby utilities could obtain unenriched uranium on the open market and have it enriched by the AEC for a fee. It ’was to protect the uranium mining and milling industry from foreign, competition during the period of transition from a Government-controlled market to an open one, that Congress included in § 161(v) the requirement that the AEC, in written “criteria,” restrict its enrichment of foreign-source uranium for domestic use “to the extent necessary to assure the maintenance of a viable domestic uranium industry.”
The criteria initially established by the AEC provided that it would enrich no foreign-source uranium for domestic use. See 31 Fed. Reg. 16479 (1966). In 1974, expecting an increase in the demand for uranium to match the anticipated expansion in the commercial use of nuclear power, the AEC amended the criteria and provided for the gradual elimination by the end of 1983 of restrictions on its enrichment of foreign-source uranium for domestic use. See 39 Fed. Reg. 38016 (1974). The phase-out took place according to schedule, and DOE, which has replaced AEC for these purposes, has not reimposed restrictions on the enrichment of foreign uranium.
The early optimistic forecast for the commercial use of nuclear power turned gloomy in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, and the economic condition of the domestic uranium industry deteriorated. Cancellations and delays in the construction of nuclear reactors led to a drop in the demand for uranium, which, in turn, brought about a precipitous decline in the price of uranium ore. The decline of the domestic uranium industry has also been attributed to other developments in the national and international markets. DOE lost its enrichment monopoly when two European consortia and the Soviet Union began to supply enriched uranium produced from foreign-source ore. See 51 Fed. Reg. 3625 (1986). This allowed foreign uranium suppliers, who offered lower prices, to compete successfully with domestic suppliers for the business of the domestic utilities.' Another competitive alternative was the emergence of a secondary market in which domestic utilities, bound by long-term contracts to purchase enrichment services in excess of their needs, sold their enriched uranium to other utilities at substantial discounts. Ibid.
In 1983, § 170B was added to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to improve Congress’ ability to monitor the domestic uranium industry’s condition. 96 Stat. 2081, 42 U. S. C. § 2210b. This new provision required the Secretary of Energy to promulgate criteria for assessing the viability of the industry and to report to the President and the Congress annually on the industry’s viability. DOE accordingly issued criteria, still in effect, see 10 CFR pt. 761 (1988), which define viability largely in terms of “the extent to which the domestic mining and milling uranium industry will be capable, at any particular time, of supplying the needs of the domestic nuclear power industry under a variety of hypothetical conditions.” 48 Fed. Reg. 45747 (1983). Applying these criteria, DOE reported that the industry was viable in 1983, but that one year later it was no longer viable. See S. Rep. No. 100-214, p. 9 (1987) (noting no change in viability in 1985 and no change in prospect for industry’s viability in 1986).
Shortly after the Secretary first reported that the industry was not viable, he initiated a rulemaking to consider revising the criteria governing DOE’s restriction of enrichment services. 51 Fed. Reg. 3624-3632 (1986). In his notice of proposed rulemaking, the Secretary specifically stated that, despite the depressed condition of the domestic industry, he proposed not to restrict the enrichment of foreign uranium because “[ijmport restrictions on foreign uranium would not assure the viability of the.domestic mining and milling industry.” Id., at 3627.
After receiving extensive comments, the Secretary adopted final revised criteria that again did not include any restrictions on enrichment. See 10 CFR pt. 762 (1988). In response to critical comments from the domestic uranium industry, the Secretary explained: “The plain language of the statute makes clear that restrictions are not to be imposed automatically if the domestic industry is non-viable, but only if they are needed to, and in fact, will assure the. maintenance of a viable domestic uranium industry.” 51 Fed. Reg. 27134 (1986). Finding that the domestic industry’s problems were due to “[structural weaknesses,” particularly the collapse in demand and the consequent inability of the market to sustain a price for uranium that enabled the industry to recover its cost of production, the Secretary concluded that restrictions on enrichment would do nothing to cure those ills. Id., at 27135. Moreover, the Secretary found that, because DOE had no market power with respect to the provision of enrichment services, it could not force its enrichment customers to use domestic uranium. Id., at 27138. The ‘Secretary repeated his earlier conclusion that restrictions on enrichment services “would not assure the viability of the domestic mining and milling industry,” id., at 27135, and, if anything, would be “counterproductive,” because such restrictions would send some customers away, requiring DOE to impose heavier costs on the remaining domestic suppliers. Id., at 27136.
Before the Secretary had concluded that the industry was not viable, and before he had initiated this latest rulemaking, respondents, three domestic uranium mining and milling companies, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against DOE and some of its officers and employees, petitioners here. Respondents alleged, among other things, that DOE’s failure to impose restrictions on the enrichment of foreign uranium for use in domestic facilities constituted a violation of §161(v). App. 10-15. Respondents moved for summary judgment based on this claim, arguing that two facts — that the domestic industry was not viable and that DOE imposed no restrictions on enrichment of foreign uranium — sufficed'.to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under § 161(v). App. 27-28. Accepting respondents’ two facts, DOE submitted a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that § 161(v) did not require restrictions when those restrictions would not serve the statutory goal of assuring the maintenance of a viable domestic industry. App. 39.
The District Court entered summary judgment for respondents. App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a. According to the court, the statute gave DOE no discretion to determine not to impose restrictions if the domestic industry was not viable. In view of its determination that immediate injunctive relief was necessary to remedy DOE’s “continuing refusal to recognize its obligations under 42 U. S. C. §2201(v),” id., at 22a-23a, the District Court entered an order requiring DOE to limit its enrichment of foreign uranium for domestic use to 25% of all material enriched between June 6 and December 31, 1986; imposing a total ban on enrichment of foreign uranium beginning January 1, 1987, and “continuing until the viability of the domestic uranium industry is assured”; and calling for a rulemaking to be commenced to determine whether “criteria less restrictive than those imposed by this order would assure the maintenance of a viable domestic uranium industry.” Id., at 23a.
DOE appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. That court affirmed the District Court’s judgment in relevant part. 825 F. 2d 1430 (1987). The Court of Appeals found the language of § 161(v) unambiguous: The term “shall” indicated that the restrictions were mandatory, and the phrase “to the extent necessary to assure the maintenance of a viable domestic uranium industry” indicated that DOE had discretion to “determine how much restriction is required to assure viability, but it cannot decide not to impose restrictions when the industry is not viable.” 825 F. 2d, at 1439. According to the Court of Appeals, the statute clearly instructs that
“when domestic nonviability is determined, restrictions on enrichment of foreign-source uranium must be imposed and must become increasingly aggressive, to the point of 100% restriction, until the domestic industry is rejuvenated and becomes viable.” Ibid.
At DOE’s request, the Court of Appeals stayed its mandate pending this Court’s final disposition of DOE’s petition for certiorari. App. 4. We granted the writ. 484 U. S. 1003 (1988).
II
We begin by emphasizing that the question presented here is a narrow one which comes to us as a challenge to the entry of summary judgment. That judgment rests on a legal conclusion drawn from two uncontested facts: that the domestic uranium industry was not viable, and that DOE was imposing no restrictions on the enrichment of foreign-source uranium for use in domestic facilities. On the basis of these facts alone, the courts below determined that DOE was violating the law, for they read § 161 (v) “to require the DOE to restrict enrichment of foreign uranium whenever the domestic industry is not viable — whether or not such restriction would result in successful resuscitation of the uranium industry.” 825 F. 2d, at 1437. Therefore, neither DOE’s underlying assessment that the industry was not viable, nor its assessment that no amount of restriction would assure the industry’s viability, nor, indeed, what it means to “assure the maintenance of a viable . . . industry” are before us at this time for review. The only question presented is whether, regardless of the effects restrictions would have on the viability of the domestic industry, DOE must impose restrictions on the enrichment of foreign-source uranium whenever the domestic industry is determined not to be viable.
In considering this narrow question of statutory interpretation, we cannot agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the relevant language in § 161(v) is unambiguous. While respondents’ reading of the statute is not implausible, it is by no means the only reading the language can bear. The statute requires DOE to impose restrictions “to the extent necessary to assure the maintenance of a viable domestic uranium industry.” If some amount of restriction would assure a viable domestic industry, there can be no doubt that DOE is required to impose restrictions. The term “shall” makes clear that, in such circumstances, DOE has no discretion to decline to impose restrictions. But whether that mandate applies when restrictions would not assure viability is not directly addressed by the language of the statute. Indeed, we well might infer from the language that the particular issue presented by this case was not the focus of Congress’ concern at the time the relevant provision was enacted. We therefore look to Congress’ express purpose in imposing restriction requirements to determine whether they apply here.
The purpose of the relevant provision could not be articulated more clearly in the statutory language. See United States v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 310 U. S. 534, 543 (1940) (“There is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes”). Congress imposed'restriction obligations on DOE to satisfy a single goal: “to assure the maintenance of a viable domestic uranium industry.”
Both parties agree that this is the clear purpose behind the provision, but they put it to different uses. Respondents contend that the statute reveals that Congress made a policy determination that imposing restrictions on the enrichment of foreign-source uranium could always assure the viability of the domestic industry and therefore commanded DOE to impose some restrictions whenever the industry’s viability was threatened or destroyed. Respondents suggest that DOE’s refusal to impose restrictions under the circumstances presented in this case simply reflects DOE’s disagreement with Congress’ policy judgment. See also 825 F. 2d, at 1439 (“DOE’s argument that this policy is not wise in the present uranium market should be made to Congress and not to the courts”).
DOE, in contrast, asserts that the clear congressional purpose defines the proper limit of DOE’s obligation: DOE is required to impose restrictions to the extent necessary to serve a particular goal, and if no extent will serve that goal, then DOE does not violate the statute by declining to impose restrictions. Indeed, DOE suggests, to impose restrictions it knew were incapable of serving the statutory goal would, in fact, be to act outside its authority.
DOE’s reading strikes us as the more natural one. While the parties, on remand, can argue over whether DOE properly determined that no amount of restriction would assure viability, and, indeed, what it means to assure viability, it seems strained to assert that, even if DOE properly determined that no amount of restriction would assure the viability of the industry, Congress nevertheless intended DOE to impose restrictions that were somehow calculated to serve that unattainable goal. Indeed, it is impossible to ascertain from the statute how DOE would calculate the extent of restriction to be imposed under respondents’ interpretation of the statute. The only guidepost DOE has is the amount necessary to assure the viability of the domestic industry. See 825 F. 2d, at 1438 (interpreting the phrase “to the extent necessary to assure the maintenance of a viable domestic industry” as “informing] the DOE of the amount of restriction required”) (emphasis in original). Where DOE determines that no such amount exists, it is without guidance in setting restrictions. The determination of the courts below that DOE was barred from enriching any foreign-source uranium rests on the assumption that the greater the restrictions, the more assured is the domestic industry’s viability. This assumption cannot be grounded in the statutory language and, indeed, for the purpose of this case’s summary judgment status, we must accept DOE’s assertion that the .assumption is false.
Ill
Because we conclude that Congress did not intend to force DOE to impose enrichment restrictions where such restrictions would not achieve the statutory goal they were intended to achieve, 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.
A purist might regard the word “viable” as misused in this context. It nevertheless appears in the statute and therefore, inescapably, it and its variants are used throughout this opinion. See H. Fowler, Modern English Usage 679 (2d ed. 1965); W. Follett, Modern American Usage 344-345 (1966).
“Enrichment,” in this context, refers to the process whereby the proportion of the fissionable isotope U-235 is increased from approximately 1% to approximately 3%. Natural, unenriehed, uranium cannot be used to produce commercial electric power.
The relevant portion of § 161(v) states that the AEC is authorized to offer toll enrichment services provided:
“That the Commission, to the extent necessary to assure the maintenance of a viable domestic uranium industry, shall not offer such services for source or special nuclear materials of foreign origin intended for use in a utilization facility within or under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Commission shall establish criteria in writing setting forth the terms and conditions under which services provided under this subsection shall be made available including the extent to which such services will be made available for source or special nuclear material of foreign origin intended for use in a utilization facility within or under the jurisdiction of the United States: Provided, That before the Commission establishes such criteria, the proposed criteria shall be submitted to the Joint Committee [on Atomic Energy], and a period of forty-five days shall elapse while Congress is in session . . . unless the Joint Committee by resolution in writing waives the conditions of, or all or any portion of, such forty-five-day period.” 42 U. S. C. §2201(v).
In 1974, Congress enacted the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1233, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §5801 et seq.,- which abolished the AEC. See § 5814(a). The functions of the AEC were divided between two regulatory bodies. Its “licensing and related regulatory functions” were transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. § 5841(f). All other functions, including the enrichment-services program, were transferred to the Energy and Research and Development Administration, § 5814(e), which later became DOE, see §§301 and 703 of Department of Energy Organization Act, 91 Stat. 577, 606, 42 U. S. C. §§ 7151(a) and 7293.
Between 1979 and 1986, the market price of uranium dropped from $43.25 per pound to $17.00 per pound, which an industry report suggests is well below the conventional United States producers’ average cost of production. See Status of the Domestic Uranium Mining and Milling Industry: The Effects of Imports, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 148 (1981) (statement of Edison Electric Institute reporting drop from 1979 to 1981); 51 Fed. Reg. 27136, n. 12 (1986) (reporting 1986 price). Apparently the market price has remained low. See Weekly Metals Prices, Financial Times, June 8,1988, p. 34, col. 1 (London ed.) (reporting price of $15.75 per pound).
Petitioners are John S. Herrington, the Secretary of Energy; F. Clark Huffman, Sherry E. Peske, Philip G. Sewell, James W. Vaughn, and Joseph F. Salgado, officers or employees of DOE sued in their official capacities; and DOE itself. For convenience, petitioners are referred to collectively as DOE.
In this motion, respondents also sought summary judgment on their claim that the criteria that DOE promulgated pursuant to § 170B to assess viability were “fatally flawed.” App. 27. Respondents later sought leave to withdraw this portion of their motion without prejudice. This request was granted by the District Court. App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a.
While the appeal was pending, Congress adopted a joint resolution for continuing appropriations to provide funding for DOE and other agencies. 100 Stat. 1783. Section 305 of the resolution expressly authorizes DOE to enrich foreign uranium until the present litigation is brought to final judgment. 100 Stat. 1783-210.
In addition to arguing that its interpretation of § 161(v) is more reasonable, DOE maintains that, even if the two interpretations are equally reasonable, its interpretation is entitled to deference as a “permissible construction” of a statute by the agency charged with the statute’s administration. See Young v. Community Nutrition Institute, 476 U. S. 974, 980 (1986), quoting Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984). Although respondents contend that DOE’s interpretation of § 161(v) has not been consistent over the years and is therefore not entitled to deference, see Brief for Respondents 34, it is unclear whether DOE articulated, in advance of this litigation, any interpretation of the statute’s application to the facts presented here. On July 29, 1986, more than one month after the District Court had issued its order granting summary judgment, DOE issued a final rulemaking, stating that it would continue to refuse to impose enrichment restrictions “in order [in part] to formally record DOE’s interpretation of section 161(v).” 51 Fed. Reg. 27134, n. 4 (1986). Because we agree that DOE’s reading of § 161(v) is the more plausible one, we need not consider whether the manner in which DOE has articulated its interpretation should affect the degree of deference it warrants. Cf. Securities Industry Assn. v. Board of Governors, FRS, 468 U. S. 137, 143-144 (1984) (Board counsel’s post hoc rationalizations for agency action entitled to little deference).
Of course, DOE would be in a different position if Congress expressly had required that restrictions be imposed whenever the industry was not viable without tying the extent of restrictions to be imposed to the achievement of a stated purpose. Were DOE governed by such a statute, its disagreement with the wisdom of the requirement would not give DOE the discretion to ignore it.
While DOE styled its response to respondents’ motion for summary judgment as a cross-motion for summary judgment as well as a memorandum in opposition, see App. 39, DOE’s successful opposition to respondents’ motion is insufficient to establish that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor. All we have resolved here is that the industry’s nonviability does not necessarily trigger an obligation to impose enrichment restrictions. Whether DOE, in fact, has violated § 161(v) by failing to impose restrictions is a question to be addressed, in the first instance, on remand after an opportunity for presentation of further evidence and further briefing.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1974 Congress amended the Judicial Code “to broaden and clarify the grounds for judicial disqualification.” 88 Stat. 1609. The first sentence of the amendment provides:
“Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U. S. C. § 455(a), as amended.
In the present case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that a violation of § 455(a) is established when a reasonable person, knowing the relevant facts, would expect that a justice, judge, or magistrate knew of circumstances creating an appearance of partiality, notwithstanding a finding that the judge was not actually conscious of those circumstances. Moreover, although the judgment in question had become final, the Court of Appeals determined that under the facts of this case, the appropriate remedy was to vacate the court’s judgment. We granted certiorari to consider its construction of § 455(a) as well as its remedial decision. 480 U. S. 915 (1987). We now affirm.
I
In November 1981, respondent Health Services Acquisition Corp. brought an action against petitioner John Lilje-berg, Jr., seeking a declaration of ownership of a corporation known as St. Jude Hospital of Kenner, Louisiana (St. Jude). The case was tried by Judge Robert Collins, sitting without a jury. Judge Collins found for Liljeberg and, over a strong dissent, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Approximately 10 months later, respondent learned that Judge Collins had been a member of the Board of Trustees of Loyola University while Liljeberg was negotiating with Loyola to purchase a parcel of land on which to construct a hospital. The success and benefit to Loyola of these negotiations turned, in large part, on Liljeberg prevailing in the litigation before Judge Collins.
Based on this information, respondent moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to vacate the judgment on the ground that Judge Collins was disqualified under § 455(a) at the time he heard the action and entered judgment in favor of Liljeberg. Judge Collins denied the motion and respondent appealed. The Court of Appeals determined that resolution of the motion required factual findings concerning the extent and timing of Judge Collins’ knowledge of Loyola’s interest in the declaratory relief litigation. Accordingly, the panel reversed and remanded the matter to a different judge for such findings. App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a. On remand, the District Court found that based on his attendance at Board meetings Judge Collins had actual knowledge of Loyola’s interest in St. Jude in 1980 and 1981. The court further concluded, however, that Judge Collins had forgotten about Loyola’s interest by the time the declaratory judgment suit came to trial in January 1982. On March 24, 1982, Judge Collins reviewed materials sent to him by the Board to prepare for an upcoming meeting. At that time — just a few days after' he had filed his opinion finding for Liljeberg and still within the 10-day period allowed for filing a motion for a new trial — Judge Collins once again obtained actual knowledge of Loyola’s interest in St. Jude. Finally, the District Court found that although Judge Collins thus lacked actual knowledge during trial and prior to the filing of his opinion, the evidence nonetheless gave rise to an appearance of impropriety. However, reading the Court of Appeals’ mandate as limited to the issue of actual knowledge, the District Court concluded that it was compelled to deny respondent’s Rule 60(b) motion. App. to Pet. for Cert. 14a.
The Court of Appeals again reversed. The court first noted that Judge Collins should have immediately disqualified himself when his actual knowledge of Loyola’s interest was renewed. The court also found that regardless of Judge Collins’ actual knowledge, “a reasonable observer would expect that Judge Collins would remember that Loyola had some dealings with Liljeberg and St. Jude and seek to ascertain the nature of these dealings.” 796 F. 2d 796, 803 (1986). Such an appearance of impropriety, in the view of the Court of Appeals, was sufficient ground for disqualification under § 455(a). Although recognizing that caution is required in determining whether a judgment should be vacated after becoming final, the court concluded that since the appearance of partiality was convincingly established and since the motion to vacate was filed as promptly as possible, the appropriate remedy was to vacate the declaratory relief judgment. Because the issues presented largely turn on the facts as they give rise to an appearance of impropriety, it is necessary to relate the sequence and substance, of these events in some detail.
I — I HH
Petitioner, John Liljeberg, Jr., is a pharmacist, a promoter, and a half-owner of Axel Realty, Inc., a real estate brokerage firm. In 1976, he became interested in a project to construct and operate a hospital in Kenner, Louisiana, a suburb of New Orleans. In addition to providing the community with needed health care facilities, he hoped to obtain a real estate commission for Axel Realty and the exclusive right to provide pharmaceutical services at the new hospital. The successful operation of such a hospital depended upon the acquisition of a “certificate of need” from the State of Louisiana; without such a certificate the hospital would not qualify for health care reimbursement payments under the federal medicare and medicaid programs. Accordingly, in October 1979, Liljeberg formed St. Jude, intending to have the corporation apply for the certificate of need at an appropriate time.
During the next two years Liljeberg engaged in serious negotiations with at least two major parties. One set of negotiations involved a proposal to purchase a large tract of land from Loyola University for use as a hospital site, coupled with a plan to rezone adjoining University property. The proposed benefits to the University included not only the proceeds of the real estate sale itself, amounting to several million dollars, but also a substantial increase in the value to the University of the rezoned adjoining property. The progress of these negotiations was regularly reported to the University’s Board of Trustees by its Real Estate Committee and discussed at Board meetings. The minuses of those meetings indicate that the University’s interest in fhe project was dependent on the issuance of the certificate of need.
Liljeberg was also conducting serious negotiations with respondent’s corporate predecessor, Hospital Affiliates International (HAI), a national health management company. In the summer of 1980, Liljeberg and HAI reached an agreement in principle, outlining their respective roles in developing the hospital. The agreement contemplated that HAI would purchase a tract of land in Kenner (not owned by the University) and construct the hospital on that land; prepare and file the certificate of need; and retain Liljeberg as a consultant to the hospital in various capacities. In turn, it was understood that Liljeberg would transfer St. Jude to HAI. Pursuant to this preliminary agreement, various documents were executed, including an agreement by HAI to purchase the tract of land from its owner for $5 million and a further agreement by HAI to place $500,000 in escrow. In addition, it was agreed that Axel Realty, Inc., would receive a $250,000 commission for locating the property. Eventually, Liljeberg signed a “warranty and indemnity agreement,” which HAI understood to transfer ownership of St. Jude to HAI. After the warranty and indemnity agreement was signed, HAI filed an application for the certificate of need.
On August 26, 1981, the certificate of need was issued and delivered to Liljeberg. He promptly advised HAI, and HAI paid the real estate commission to Axel Realty. A dispute arose, however, over whether the warranty and indemnity agreement did in fact transfer ownership of St. Jude to HAI. Liljeberg contended that the transfer of ownership of St. Jude — and hence, the certificate of need — was conditioned upon reaching a final agreement concerning his continued participation in the hospital project. This contention was not supported by any written instrument. HAI denied that there was any such unwritten understanding and insisted that, by virtue of the warranty and indemnity agreement, it had been sole owner of St. Jude for over a year. The dispute gave rise to this litigation.
Respondent filed its complaint for declaratory judgment on November 30, 1981. The case was tried by Judge Collins, sitting without a jury, on January 21 and 22, 1982. At the close of the evidence, he announced his intended ruling, and on March 16, 1982, he filed a judgment (dated March 12, 1982) and his findings of fact and conclusions of law. He credited Liljeberg’s version of oral conversations that were disputed and of critical importance in his ruling.
During the period between November 30, 1981, and March 16, 1982, Judge Collins was a trustee of Loyola University, but was not conscious of the fact that the University and Liljeberg were then engaged in serious negotiations concerning the Kenner hospital project, or of the further fact that the success of those negotiations depended upon his conclusion that Liljeberg controlled the certificate of need. To determine whether Judge Collins’ impartiality in the Liljeberg litigation "might reasonably be questioned,” it is appropriate to consider the state of his knowledge immediately before the lawsuit was filed, what happened while the case was pending before him, and what he did when he learned of the University’s interest in the litigation.
After the certificate of need was issued, and Liljeberg and HAI became embroiled in their dispute, Liljeberg reopened his negotiations with the University. On October 29, 1981, the Real Estate Committee sent a written report to each of the trustees, including Judge Collins, advising them of “a significant change” concerning the proposed hospital in Kenner and stating specifically that Loyola’s property had “again become a prime location.” App. 72. The Committee submitted a draft of a resolution authorizing a University vice president “to continue negotiations with the developers of the St. Jude Hospital.” Id., at 73. At the Board meeting on November 12, 1981, which Judge Collins attended, the trustees discussed the connection between the rezoning of Loyola’s land in Kenner and the St. Jude project and adopted the Real Estate Committee’s proposed resolution. Thus, Judge Collins had actual knowledge of the University’s potential interest in the St. Jude hospital project in Kenner just a few days before the complaint was filed.
While the case was pending before Judge Collins, the University agreed to sell 80 acres of its land in Kenner to Liljeberg for $6,694,000. The progress of negotiations was discussed at a Board meeting on January 28, 1982. Judge Collins did not attend that meeting, but the Real Estate Committee advised the trustees that “the federal courts have determined that the certificate of need will be awarded to the St. Jude Corporation.” Id., at 37. Presumably this advice was based on Judge Collins’ comment at the close of the hearing a week earlier, when he announced his intended ruling because he thought “it would be unfair to keep the parties in doubt as to how I feel about the case.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 41a.
The formal agreement between Liljeberg and the University was apparently executed on March 19. App. 50-58. The agreement stated that it was not in any way conditioned on Liljeberg’s prevailing in the litigation “pending in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana... involving the obtaining by [Liljeberg] of a Certificate of Need,” id., at 55, but it also gave the University the right to repurchase the property for the contract price if Liljeberg had not executed a satisfactory construction contract within one year and further provided for nullification of the contract in the event the rezoning of the University’s adjoining land was not accomplished. Thus, the University continued to have an active interest in the outcome of the litigation because it was unlikely that Liljeberg could build the hospital if he lost control of the certificate of need; moreover, the rezoning was in turn dependent on the hospital project.
The details of the transaction were discussed in three letters to the trustees dated March 12, 15, and 19, 1982, but Judge Collins did not examine any of those letters until shortly before the Board meeting on March 25, 1982. Thus, he acquired actual knowledge of Loyola’s interest in the litigation on March 24,1982. As the Court of Appeals correctly held, “Judge Collins should have recused himself when he obtained actual knowledge of that interest on March 24.” 796 F. 2d, at 801.
In considering whether the Court of Appeals properly vacated the declaratory relief judgment, we are required to address two questions. We must first determine whether § 455(a) can be violated based on an appearance of partiality, even though the judge was not conscious of the circumstances creating the appearance of impropriety, and second, whether relief is available under Rule 60(b) when such a violation is not discovered until after the judgment has become final.
hH hH
Title 28 U. S. C. § 455 provides in relevant part:
“(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
“(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following' circumstances:
“(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
“(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.”
Scienter is not an element of a violation of § 455(a). The judge’s lack of knowledge of a disqualifying circumstance may bear on the question of remedy, but it does not eliminate the risk that “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” by other persons. To read § 455(a) to provide that the judge must know of the disqualifying facts, requires not simply ignoring the language of the provision — which makes no mention of knowledge — but further requires concluding that the language in subsection (b)(4) — which expressly provides that the judge must know of his or her interest — is extraneous. A careful reading of the respective subsections makes clear that Congress intended to require knowledge under subsection (b)(4) and not to require knowledge under subsection (a). Moreover, advancement of the purpose of the provision — to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process, see S. Rep. No. 93-419, p. 5 (1973); H. R. Rep. No. 93-1453, p. 5 (1974) — does not depend upon whether or not the judge actually knew of facts creating an appearance of impropriety, so long as the public might reasonably believe that he or she knew. As Chief Judge Clark of the Court of Appeals explained:
“The goal of section 455(a) is to avoid even the appearance of partiality. If it would appear to a reasonable person that a judge has knowledge of facts that would give him an interest in the litigation then an appearance of partiality is created even though no actual partiality exists because the judge does not recall the facts, because the judge actually has no interest in the case or because the judge is pure in heart and incorruptible. The judge’s forgetfulness, however, is not the sort of objectively ascertainable fact that can avoid the appearance of partiality. Hall v. Small Business Administration, 695 F. 2d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1983). Under section 455(a), therefore, recusal is required even when a judge lacks actual knowledge of the facts indicating his interest or bias in the case if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would expect that the judge would have actual knowledge.” 796 F. 2d, at 802.
Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, this reading of the statute does not call upon judges to perform the impossible— to disqualify themselves based on facts they do not know. If, as petitioner argues, § 455(a) should only be applied prospectively, then requiring disqualification based on facts the judge does not know would of course be absurd; a judge could never be expected to disqualify himself based on some fact he does not know, even though the fact is one that perhaps he should know or one that people might reasonably suspect that he does know. But to the extent the provision can also, in proper cases, be applied retroactively, the judge is not called upon to perform an impossible feat. Rather, he is called upon to rectify an oversight and to take the steps necessary to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. If he concludes that “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” then he should also find that the statute has been violated. This is certainly not an impossible task. No one questions that Judge Collins could have disqualified himself and vacated his judgment when he finally realized that Loyola had an interest in the litigation. The initial appeal was taken from his failure to disqualify himself and vacate the judgment after he became aware of the appearance of impropriety, not from his failure to disqualify himself when he first became involved in the litigation and lacked the requisite knowledge.
In this case both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found an ample basis in the record for concluding that an objective observer would have questioned Judge Collins’ impartiality. Accordingly, even though his failure to disqualify himself was the product of a temporary lapse of memory, it was nevertheless a plain violation of the terms of the statute.
A conclusion that a statutory violation occurred does not, however, end our inquiry. As in other areas of the law, there is surely room for harmless error committed by busy judges who inadvertently overlook a disqualifying circumstance. There need not be a draconian remedy for every violation of § 455(a). It would be equally wrong, however, to adopt an absolute prohibition against any relief in cases involving forgetful judges.
IV
Although § 455. defines the circumstances that mandate disqualification of federal judges, it neither prescribes nor prohibits any particular remedy for a violation of that duty. Congress has wisely delegated to the judiciary the task of fashioning the remedies that will best serve the purpose of the legislation. In considering whether a remedy is appropriate, we do well to bear in mind that in many cases — and this is such an example — the Court of Appeals is in a better position to evaluate the significance of a violation than is this Court. Its judgment as to the proper remedy should thus be afforded our due consideration. A review of the facts demonstrates that the Court of Appeals’ determination that a new trial is in order is well supported.
Section 455 does not, on its own, authorize the reopening of closed litigation. However, as respondent and the Court of Appeals recognized, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides a procedure whereby, in appropriate cases, a party may be relieved of a final judgment. In particular, Rule 60(b)(6), upon which respondent relies, grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment “upon such terms as are just,” provided that the motion is made within a reasonable time and is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5). The Rule does not particularize the factors that justify relief, but we have previously noted that it provides courts with authority “adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice,” Klapprott v. United States, 335 U. S. 601, 614-615 (1949), while also cautioning that it should only be applied in “extraordinary circumstances,” Ackermann v. United States, 340 U. S. 193 (1950). Rule 60(b)(6) relief is accordingly neither categorically available nor categorically unavailable for all § 455(a) violations. We conclude that in determining whether a judgment should be vacated for a violation of § 455 (a), it is appropriate to consider the risk of injustice to the parties in the particular case, the risk that the denial of relief will produce injustice in other cases, and the risk of undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process. We must continuously bear in mind that “to perform its high function in the best way ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’” In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955) (citation omitted).
Like the Court of Appeals, we accept the District Court’s finding that while the case was actually being tried Judge Collins did not have actual knowledge of Loyola’s interest in the dispute over the ownership of St. Jude and its precious certificate of need. When a busy federal judge concentrates his or her full attention on a pending case, personal concerns are easily forgotten. The problem, however, is that people who have not served on the bench are often all too willing to indulge suspicions and doubts concerning the integrity of judges. The very purpose of § 455(a) is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible. See S. Rep. No 93-419, at 5; H. R. Rep. No. 93-1453, at 5. Thus, it is critically important in a case of this kind to identify the facts that might reasonably cause an objective observer to question Judge Collins’ impartiality. There are at least four such facts.
First, it is remarkable that the judge, who had regularly attended the meetings of the Board of Trustees since 1977, completely forgot about the University’s interest in having a hospital constructed on its property in Kenner. The importance of the project to the University is indicated by the fact that the 80-acre parcel, which represented only about 40% of the entire tract owned by the University, was sold for $6,694,000 and that the rezoning would substantially increase the value of the remaining 60%. The “negotiations with the developers of the St. Jude Hospital” were the subject of discussion and formal action by the trustees at a meeting attended by Judge Collins only a few days before the lawsuit was filed. App. 35.
Second, it is an unfortunate coincidence that although the judge regularly attended the meetings of the Board of Trustees, he was not present at the January 28, 1982, meeting, a week after the 2-day trial and while the case was still under advisement. The minutes of that meeting record that representatives of the University monitored the progress of the trial, but did not see fit to call to the judge’s attention the obvious conflict of interest that resulted from having a University trustee preside over that trial. These minutes were mailed to Judge Collins on March 12, 1982. If the judge had opened that envelope when he received it on March 14 or 15, he would have been under a duty to recuse himself before he entered judgment on March 16.
Third, it is remarkable — and quite inexcusable — that Judge Collins failed to recuse himself on March 24, 1982. A full disclosure at that time would have completely removed any basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality and would have made it possible for a different judge to decide whether the interests — and appearance — of justice would have been served by a retrial. Another 2-day evidentiary hearing would surely have been less burdensome and less embarrassing than the protracted proceedings that resulted from Judge Collins’ nonrecusal and nondisclosure. Moreover, as the Court of Appeals correctly noted, Judge Collins’ failure to disqualify himself on March 24, 1982, also constituted a violation of § 455(b)(4), which disqualifies a judge if he “knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary,... has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” This separate violation of §455 further compels the conclusion that vacatur was an appropriate remedy; by his silence, Judge Collins deprived respondent of a basis for making a timely motion for a new trial and also deprived it of an issue on direct appeal.
Fourth, when respondent filed its motion to vacate, Judge Collins gave three reasons for denying the motion, but still did not acknowledge that he had known about the University’s interest both shortly before and shortly after the trial. Nor did he indicate any awareness of a duty to recuse himself in March 1982.
These facts create precisely the kind of appearance of impropriety that § 455(a) was intended to prevent. The violation is neither insubstantial nor excusable. Although Judge Collins did not know of his fiduciary interest in the litigation, he certainly should have known. In fact, his failure to stay informed of this fiduciary interest may well constitute a separate violation of §455. See § 455(c). Moreover, providing relief in cases such as this will not produce injustice in other cases; to the contrary, the Court of Appeals’ willingness to enforce § 455 may prevent a substantive injustice in some future case by encouraging a judge or litigant to more carefully examine possible grounds for disqualification and to promptly disclose them when discovered. It is therefore appropriate to vacate the judgment unless it can be said that respondent did not make a timely request for relief, or that it would otherwise be unfair to deprive the prevailing party of its judgment.
If we focus on fairness to the particular litigants, a careful study of Judge Rubin’s analysis of the merits of the underlying litigation suggests that there is a greater risk of unfairness in upholding the judgment in favor of Liljeberg than there is in allowing a new judge to take a fresh look at the issues. Moreover, neither Liljeberg nor Loyola University has made a showing of special hardship by reason of their reliance on the original judgment. Finally, although a delay of 10 months after the affirmance by the Court of Appeals would normally foreclose relief based on a violation of § 455(a), in this case the entire delay is attributable to Judge Collins’ inexcusable failure to disqualify himself on March 24, 1982; had he recused himself on March 24, or even disclosed Loyola’s interest in the case at that time, the motion could have been made less than 10 days after the entry of judgment. “The guiding consideration is that the administration of justice should reasonably appear to be disinterested as well as be so in fact.” Public Utilities Comm’n of D. C. v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451, 466-467 (1952) (Frankfurter,' J., in chambers). In sum, we conclude that Chief Judge Clark’s opinion of the Court of Appeals reflects an eminently sound and wise disposition of this case.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Affirmed.
Because the court concluded that the judgment should be vacated based on an appearance of impropriety that permeated the entire proceeding, it declined to decide on the appropriate remedy for a judge’s failure to promptly disqualify himself after the entry of judgment but prior to expiration of the time allowed for filing certain motions.
See 42 U. S. C. § 1320a-1 (1982 ed. and Supp. IV). As the Court of Appeals noted, “[without reimbursement, it is impractical (if not impossible) to operate a hospital.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a, n. 1.
The District Court found:
“Discussions of the St. Jude Hospital project are reflected in the minutes of the next meeting of the Board of Trustees on January 24, 1980, which Judge Collins attended. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 22. Liljeberg’s first offer on behalf of St. Jude Properties to purchase approximately 75 acres of Loyola’s Kenner property was presented in a Real Estate Committee report, which was summarized in the Board minutes. The minutes also include the response of Loyola University to Liljeberg, including the Committee’s expression of interest in continuing negotiations with St. Jude Properties. The minutes further reflect the Real Estate Committee’s communication to Liljeberg that ‘until a certificate of need were forthcoming, Loyola would more than likely not be interested in the project.’ The minutes outline the terms of a second offer received by Loyola University from St. Jude Properties raising the purchase price by $7,000.00 per acre, ‘with no financing necessary and no commitments of any kind except the dedication of 110 feet for roadway purposes, with the improvement cost paid totally by the Lilje-berg group.’ The minutes elaborate on the details of the offer, including St. Jude Properties’ desire for a sixty day period to secure financing to finalize the sale.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 19a-20a.
Coincidentally, HAI was acquired by Hospital Corporation of America on August 26, 1981, through a merger of HAI and respondent, Health Services Acquisition Corporation, which is a subsidiary of Hospital Corporation of America. For convenience, we shall continue to describe this entity as HAI.
For example, Liljeberg’s attorney testified that before returning the signed copy of the warranty and indemnity agreement to HAI, he told HAI’s associate corporate counsel that Liljeberg would not transfer ownership of St. Jude until they reached a binding agreement concerning Lilje-berg’s continued participation in the hospital project. HAI’s associate corporate counsel testified that no such conversation occurred. App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a, n. 3.
Although noting this conflicting testimony, the Fifth Circuit held on appeal that Judge Collins did not abuse his discretion in awarding the certificate to Liljeberg. Judge Rubin, in dissent, pointed to another example of where Liljeberg received the benefit of the doubt on a critical disputed fact. Liljeberg’s attorney received the proposed warranty and indemnity agreement from HAI under cover of a letter which stated: “I believe this is the only document... that would be needed in effecting the transfer.” Id., at 60a, n. 2. Liljeberg’s attorney testified, however, that he did not read the letter of transmittal. Yet, as Judge Rubin observed:
“It is curious that a lawyer would fail to read a letter that comes to him attached to an important document. It is curiouser, as Alice said, after she had passed through the looking glass into Wonderland, that Liljeberg, who repeatedly testified that he distrusted HAI although he had contemplated entering into a complex and potentially lucrative relationship with the corporation, designed to operate over a seven-year period, did not respond to the cover letter....
“It is curiouser still that [Liljeberg’s attorney], who testified that he did not read the cover letter, nevertheless knew that HAI believed that the Warranty and Indemnity Agreement was sufficient to transfer ‘ownership.’” Id,., at 75a, n. 4.
As the Court of Appeals pointed out:
“The district court’s determination that Loyola’s interest in the litigation terminated as of March 19,1982 is clearly erroneous. Although the agreement between Loyola and Liljeberg was not contingent on the outcome of the lawsuit, as a practical matter Loyola still had a substantial interest in Liljeberg’s obtaining the certificate of approval. Without the certificate, it is very likely that Liljeberg would not have been able to build the hospital on the Monroe Tract. The construction of a hospital on its property was extremely important to Loyola as shown by the fact that Loyola was allowed under its agreement with Liljeberg to repurchase the land if a hospital was not built. Furthermore, the construction of a hospital on the Monroe Tract was critical to the effort to rezone the surrounding property owned by Loyola; the rezoning was also of vital interest to Loyola. Therefore, Loyola’s interest in the litigation did not terminate as of March 19, 1982 and Judge Collins should have recused himself when he obtained actual knowledge of that interest on March 24.” 796 F. 2d 796, 800-801 (1986).
Prior to the 1974 amendments, §455 simply provided:
“Any justice or judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any case in which he has a substantial interest, has been of counsel, is or has been a material witness, or is so related to or connected with any party or his attorney as to render it improper, in his opinion, for him to sit on the trial, appeal, or other proceeding therein.” 28 U. S. C. §455 (1970 ed.).
The statute was amended in 1974 to clarify and broaden the grounds for judicial disqualification and to conform with the recently adopted ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3C (1974). See S. Rep. No. 93-419, p. 1 (1973); H. R. Rep. No. 93-1453, pp. 1-2 (1974). The general language of subsection (a) was designed to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process by replacing the subjective “in his opinion” standard with an objective test. See S. Rep. No. 93-419, at 5; H. R. Rep. No. 93-1453, at 5.
Petitioner contends that § 455(a) must be construed in light of §455 (b)(4). He argues that the reference to knowledge in § 455(b)(4) indicates that Congress must have intended that scienter be an element under § 455 (a) as well. Petitioner reasons that § 455(a) is a catchall provision, encompassing all of the specifically enumerated grounds for disqualification under § 455(b), as well as other grounds not specified. Not requiring knowledge under § 455(a), in petitioner’s view, would thus render meaningless the knowledge requirement under § 455(b)(4). The requirement could always be circumvented by simply moving for disqualification under § 455(a), rather than § 455(b).
Petitioner’s argument ignores important differences between subsections (a) and (b)(4). Most importantly, § 455(b)(4) requires disqualification no matter how insubstantial the financial interest and regardless of whether or not the interest actually creates an appearance of impropriety. See § 455(d)(4); In re Cement and Concrete Litigation, 515 F. Supp. 1076 (Ariz. 1981), mandamus denied, 688 F. 2d 1297 (CA9 1982), aff’d by absence of quorum, Arizona v. United States District Court, 459 U. S. 1191 (1983). In addition, § 455(e) specifies that a judge may not accept a waiver of any ground for disqualification under § 455(b), but may accept such a waiver under § 455(a) after “a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.” Section 455(b) is therefore a somewhat stricter provision, and thus is not simply redundant with the broader coverage of § 455(a) as petitioner’s argument posits.
Large, multidistriet class actions, for example, often present judges with unique difficulties in monitoring any potential interest they may have in the litigation. In such cases, the judge is required to familiarize himself or herself with the named parties and all the members of the class, which in an extreme case may number in the hundreds or even thousands. This already difficult task is compounded by the fact that the precise contours of the class are often not defined until well into the litigation. See Union Carbide Corp. v. U. S. Cutting Service, Inc., 782 F. 2d 710, 714 (CA7 1986); In re Cement and Concrete Antitrust Litigation, 515 F. Supp., 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:
|
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.
At the conclusion of a bankruptcy proceeding, a bankruptcy court typically enters an order releasing the debtor from liability for most prebankruptcy debts. This order, known as a discharge order, bars creditors from attempting to collect any debt covered by the order. See 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2). The question presented here concerns the criteria for determining when a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt that a discharge order has immunized from collection.
The Bankruptcy Court, in holding the creditors here in civil contempt, applied a standard that it described as akin to "strict liability" based on the standard's expansive scope. In re Taggart , 522 B. R. 627, 632 (Bkrtcy. D.Ct. Ore. 2014). It held that civil contempt sanctions are permissible, irrespective of the creditor's beliefs, so long as the creditor was " 'aware of the discharge' " order and " 'intended the actions which violate[d]' " it. Ibid. (quoting In re Hardy , 97 F. 3d 1384, 1390 (CA11 1996) ). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, disagreed with that standard. Applying a subjective standard instead, it concluded that a court cannot hold a creditor in civil contempt if the creditor has a "good faith belief" that the discharge order "does not apply to the creditor's claim." In re Taggart , 888 F. 3d 438, 444 (2018). That is so, the Court of Appeals held, "even if the creditor's belief is unreasonable." Ibid.
We conclude that neither a standard akin to strict liability nor a purely subjective standard is appropriate. Rather, in our view, a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor's conduct. In other words, civil contempt may be appropriate if there is no objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor's conduct might be lawful.
I
Bradley Taggart, the petitioner, formerly owned an interest in an Oregon company, Sherwood Park Business Center. That company, along with two of its other owners, brought a lawsuit in Oregon state court, claiming that Taggart had breached the Business Center's operating agreement. (We use the name "Sherwood" to refer to the company, its two owners, and-in some instances-their former attorney, who is now represented by the executor of his estate. The company, the two owners, and the executor are the respondents in this case.)
Before trial, Taggart filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, which permits insolvent debtors to discharge their debts by liquidating assets to pay creditors. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 704(a)(1), 726. Ultimately, the Federal Bankruptcy Court wound up the proceeding and issued an order granting him a discharge. Taggart's discharge order, like many such orders, goes no further than the statute: It simply says that the debtor "shall be granted a discharge under § 727." App. 60; see United States Courts, Order of Discharge: Official Form 318 (Dec. 2015), http:/ /www.uscourts.gov / sites / default / files /form _ b318_0.pdf (as last visited May 31, 2019). Section 727, the statute cited in the discharge order, states that a discharge relieves the debtor "from all debts that arose before the date of the order for relief," "[e]xcept as provided in section 523." § 727(b). Section 523 then lists in detail the debts that are exempt from discharge. §§ 523(a)(1)-(19). The words of the discharge order, though simple, have an important effect: A discharge order "operates as an injunction" that bars creditors from collecting any debt that has been discharged. § 524(a)(2).
After the issuance of Taggart's federal bankruptcy discharge order, the Oregon state court proceeded to enter judgment against Taggart in the prebankruptcy suit involving Sherwood. Sherwood then filed a petition in state court seeking attorney's fees that were incurred after Taggart filed his bankruptcy petition. All parties agreed that, under the Ninth Circuit's decision in In re Ybarra , 424 F. 3d 1018 (2005), a discharge order would normally cover and thereby discharge postpetition attorney's fees stemming from prepetition litigation (such as the Oregon litigation) unless the discharged debtor " 'returned to the fray' " after filing for bankruptcy. Id. , at 1027. Sherwood argued that Taggart had "returned to the fray" postpetition and therefore was liable for the postpetition attorney's fees that Sherwood sought to collect. The state trial court agreed and held Taggart liable for roughly $ 45,000 of Sherwood's postpetition attorney's fees.
At this point, Taggart returned to the Federal Bankruptcy Court. He argued that he had not returned to the state-court "fray" under Ybarra , and that the discharge order therefore barred Sherwood from collecting postpetition attorney's fees. Taggart added that the court should hold Sherwood in civil contempt because Sherwood had violated the discharge order. The Bankruptcy Court did not agree. It concluded that Taggart had returned to the fray. Finding no violation of the discharge order, it refused to hold Sherwood in civil contempt.
Taggart appealed, and the Federal District Court held that Taggart had not returned to the fray. Hence, it concluded that Sherwood violated the discharge order by trying to collect attorney's fees. The District Court remanded the case to the Bankruptcy Court.
The Bankruptcy Court, noting the District Court's decision, then held Sherwood in civil contempt. In doing so, it applied a standard it likened to "strict liability." 522 B. R. at 632. The Bankruptcy Court held that civil contempt sanctions were appropriate because Sherwood had been " 'aware of the discharge' " order and " 'intended the actions which violate[d]' " it. Ibid. (quoting In re Hardy , 97 F. 3d at 1390 ). The court awarded Taggart approximately $ 105,000 in attorney's fees and costs, $ 5,000 in damages for emotional distress, and $ 2,000 in punitive damages.
Sherwood appealed. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel vacated these sanctions, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the panel's decision. The Ninth Circuit applied a very different standard than the Bankruptcy Court. It concluded that a "creditor's good faith belief" that the discharge order "does not apply to the creditor's claim precludes a finding of contempt, even if the creditor's belief is unreasonable." 888 F. 3d at 444. Because Sherwood had a "good faith belief" that the discharge order "did not apply" to Sherwood's claims, the Court of Appeals held that civil contempt sanctions were improper. Id. , at 445.
Taggart filed a petition for certiorari, asking us to decide whether "a creditor's good-faith belief that the discharge injunction does not apply precludes a finding of civil contempt." Pet. for Cert. I. We granted certiorari.
II
The question before us concerns the legal standard for holding a creditor in civil contempt when the creditor attempts to collect a debt in violation of a bankruptcy discharge order. Two Bankruptcy Code provisions aid our efforts to find an answer. The first, section 524, says that a discharge order "operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset" a discharged debt. 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2). The second, section 105, authorizes a court to "issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title." § 105(a).
In what circumstances do these provisions permit a court to hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order? In our view, these provisions authorize a court to impose civil contempt sanctions when there is no objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor's conduct might be lawful under the discharge order.
A
Our conclusion rests on a longstanding interpretive principle: When a statutory term is " 'obviously transplanted from another legal source,' " it " 'brings the old soil with it.' " Hall v. Hall , 584 U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 1118, 1128, 200 L.Ed.2d 399 (2018) (quoting Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 537 (1947)); see Field v. Mans , 516 U.S. 59, 69-70, 116 S.Ct. 437, 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995) (applying that principle to the Bankruptcy Code). Here, the statutes specifying that a discharge order "operates as an injunction," § 524(a)(2), and that a court may issue any "order" or "judgment" that is "necessary or appropriate" to "carry out" other bankruptcy provisions, § 105(a), bring with them the "old soil" that has long governed how courts enforce injunctions.
That "old soil" includes the "potent weapon" of civil contempt. Longshoremen v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn. , 389 U.S. 64, 76, 88 S.Ct. 201, 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967). Under traditional principles of equity practice, courts have long imposed civil contempt sanctions to "coerce the defendant into compliance" with an injunction or "compensate the complainant for losses" stemming from the defendant's noncompliance with an injunction. United States v. Mine Workers , 330 U.S. 258, 303-304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947) ; see D. Dobbs & C. Roberts, Law of Remedies § 2.8, p. 132 (3d ed. 2018); J. High, Law of Injunctions § 1449, p. 940 (2d ed. 1880).
The bankruptcy statutes, however, do not grant courts unlimited authority to hold creditors in civil contempt. Instead, as part of the "old soil" they bring with them, the bankruptcy statutes incorporate the traditional standards in equity practice for determining when a party may be held in civil contempt for violating an injunction.
In cases outside the bankruptcy context, we have said that civil contempt "should not be resorted to where there is [a] fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct."
California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor , 113 U.S. 609, 618, 5 S.Ct. 618, 28 L.Ed. 1106 (1885) (emphasis added). This standard reflects the fact that civil contempt is a "severe remedy," ibid. , and that principles of "basic fairness requir[e] that those enjoined receive explicit notice" of "what conduct is outlawed" before being held in civil contempt, Schmidt v. Lessard , 414 U.S. 473, 476, 94 S.Ct. 713, 38 L.Ed.2d 661 (1974) (per curiam ). See Longshoremen , supra , at 76, 88 S.Ct. 201 (noting that civil contempt usually is not appropriate unless "those who must obey" an order "will know what the court intends to require and what it means to forbid"); 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2960, pp. 430-431 (2013) (suggesting that civil contempt may be improper if a party's attempt at compliance was "reasonable").
This standard is generally an objective one. We have explained before that a party's subjective belief that she was complying with an order ordinarily will not insulate her from civil contempt if that belief was objectively unreasonable. As we said in McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. , 336 U.S. 187, 69 S.Ct. 497, 93 L.Ed. 599 (1949), "[t]he absence of wilfulness does not relieve from civil contempt." Id. , at 191, 69 S.Ct. 497.
We have not held, however, that subjective intent is always irrelevant. Our cases suggest, for example, that civil contempt sanctions may be warranted when a party acts in bad faith. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. , 501 U.S. 32, 50, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). Thus, in McComb , we explained that a party's "record of continuing and persistent violations" and "persistent contumacy" justified placing "the burden of any uncertainty in the decree ... on [the] shoulders" of the party who violated the court order. 336 U.S. at 192-193, 69 S.Ct. 497. On the flip side of the coin, a party's good faith, even where it does not bar civil contempt, may help to determine an appropriate sanction. Cf. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A. , 481 U.S. 787, 801, 107 S.Ct. 2124, 95 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987) ("[O]nly the least possible power adequate to the end proposed should be used in contempt cases" (quotation altered)).
These traditional civil contempt principles apply straightforwardly to the bankruptcy discharge context. The typical discharge order entered by a bankruptcy court is not detailed. See supra , at 1799 - 1800. Congress, however, has carefully delineated which debts are exempt from discharge. See §§ 523(a)(1)-(19). Under the fair ground of doubt standard, civil contempt therefore may be appropriate when the creditor violates a discharge order based on an objectively unreasonable understanding of the discharge order or the statutes that govern its scope.
B
The Solicitor General, amicus here, agrees with the fair ground of doubt standard we adopt. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13-15. And the respondents stated at oral argument that it would be appropriate for courts to apply that standard in this context. Tr. of Oral Arg. 43. The Ninth Circuit and petitioner Taggart, however, each believe that a different standard should apply.
As for the Ninth Circuit, the parties and the Solicitor General agree that it adopted the wrong standard. So do we. The Ninth Circuit concluded that a "creditor's good faith belief" that the discharge order "does not apply to the creditor's claim precludes a finding of contempt, even if the creditor's belief is unreasonable." 888 F. 3d at 444. But this standard is inconsistent with traditional civil contempt principles, under which parties cannot be insulated from a finding of civil contempt based on their subjective good faith. It also relies too heavily on difficult-to-prove states of mind. And it may too often lead creditors who stand on shaky legal ground to collect discharged debts, forcing debtors back into litigation (with its accompanying costs) to protect the discharge that it was the very purpose of the bankruptcy proceeding to provide.
Taggart, meanwhile, argues for a standard like the one applied by the Bankruptcy Court. This standard would permit a finding of civil contempt if the creditor was aware of the discharge order and intended the actions that violated the order. Brief for Petitioner 19; cf. 522 B. R. at 632 (applying a similar standard). Because most creditors are aware of discharge orders and intend the actions they take to collect a debt, this standard would operate much like a strict-liability standard. It would authorize civil contempt sanctions for a violation of a discharge order regardless of the creditor's subjective beliefs about the scope of the discharge order, and regardless of whether there was a reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor's conduct did not violate the order. Taggart argues that such a standard would help the debtor obtain the "fresh start" that bankruptcy promises. He adds that a standard resembling strict liability would be fair to creditors because creditors who are unsure whether a debt has been discharged can head to federal bankruptcy court and obtain an advance determination on that question before trying to collect the debt. See Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 4007(a).
We doubt, however, that advance determinations would provide a workable solution to a creditor's potential dilemma. A standard resembling strict liability may lead risk-averse creditors to seek an advance determination in bankruptcy court even where there is only slight doubt as to whether a debt has been discharged. And because discharge orders are written in general terms and operate against a complex statutory backdrop, there will often be at least some doubt as to the scope of such orders. Taggart's proposal thus may lead to frequent use of the advance determination procedure. Congress, however, expected that this procedure would be needed in only a small class of cases. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(c)(1) (noting only three categories of debts for which creditors must obtain advance determinations). The widespread use of this procedure also would alter who decides whether a debt has been discharged, moving litigation out of state courts, which have concurrent jurisdiction over such questions, and into federal courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) ; Advisory Committee's 2010 Note on subd. (c)(1) of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8, 28 U.S.C. App., p. 776 (noting that "whether a claim was excepted from discharge" is "in most instances" not determined in bankruptcy court).
Taggart's proposal would thereby risk additional federal litigation, additional costs, and additional delays. That result would interfere with "a chief purpose of the bankruptcy laws": " 'to secure a prompt and effectual' " resolution of bankruptcy cases " 'within a limited period.' " Katchen v. Landy , 382 U.S. 323, 328, 86 S.Ct. 467, 15 L.Ed.2d 391 (1966) (quoting Ex parte Christy , 3 How. 292, 312, 11 L.Ed. 603 (1844) ). These negative consequences, especially the costs associated with the added need to appear in federal proceedings, could work to the disadvantage of debtors as well as creditors.
Taggart also notes that lower courts often have used a standard akin to strict liability to remedy violations of automatic stays. See Brief for Petitioner 21. An automatic stay is entered at the outset of a bankruptcy proceeding. The statutory provision that addresses the remedies for violations of automatic stays says that "an individual injured by any willful violation" of an automatic stay "shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages." 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1). This language, however, differs from the more general language in section 105(a). Supra , at ----. The purposes of automatic stays and discharge orders also differ: A stay aims to prevent damaging disruptions to the administration of a bankruptcy case in the short run, whereas a discharge is entered at the end of the case and seeks to bind creditors over a much longer period. These differences in language and purpose sufficiently undermine Taggart's proposal to warrant its rejection. (We note that the automatic stay provision uses the word "willful," a word the law typically does not associate with strict liability but " 'whose construction is often dependent on the context in which it appears.' " Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr , 551 U.S. 47, 57, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007) (quoting Bryan v. United States , 524 U.S. 184, 191, 118 S.Ct. 1939, 141 L.Ed.2d 197 (1998) ). We need not, and do not, decide whether the word "willful" supports a standard akin to strict liability.)
III
We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in applying a subjective standard for civil contempt. Based on the traditional principles that govern civil contempt, the proper standard is an objective one. A court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order where there is not a "fair ground of doubt" as to whether the creditor's conduct might be lawful under the discharge order. In our view, that standard strikes the "careful balance between the interests of creditors and debtors" that the Bankruptcy Code often seeks to achieve. Clark v. Rameker , 573 U.S. 122, 129, 134 S.Ct. 2242, 189 L.Ed.2d 157 (2014).
Because the Court of Appeals did not apply the proper standard, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Chief Justice Warren,
announced by Mr. Justice Brennan.
The narrow question for decision in this case is whether a withdrawable capital share in an Illinois savings and loan association is a “security” within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 881, 15 U. S. C. § 78a et seq.
The petitioners are a number of individuals holding withdrawable capital shares in City Savings Association of Chicago, a corporation doing business under the Illinois Savings and Loan Act. On July 24, 1964, they filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the sales of the shares to them by City Savings were void under § 29 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78ec (b), and asking that the sales be rescinded. Named as defendants in the complaint were City Savings, its officers and directors, two state officials who had taken custody of the Association, and three individuals named as liquidators by the Association’s shareholders in voting a voluntary plan of liquidation. The complaint alleged that the withdrawable capital shares purchased by the petitioners were securities within the meaning of §3 (a) (10) of the Securities Exchange Act, that the petitioners had purchased such securities in reliance upon printed solicitations received from City Savings through the mails, and that such solicitations contained false and misleading statements in violation of § 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. More specifically, the complaint alleged that the mailed solicitations portrayed City Savings as a financially strong institution and its shares as desirable investments. But the solicitations failed to disclose, inter alia, that the Association was controlled by an individual who had been convicted of mail fraud involving savings and loan associations, that the Association had been denied federal insurance of its accounts because of its unsafe financial policies, and that the Association had been forced to restrict withdrawals by holders of previously purchased shares.
The respondents filed motions to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action under § 10 (b) because the petitioners’ with-drawable capital shares were not securities within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act. The District Court denied the motions to dismiss, ruling that the petitioners’ shares fell within the Act’s definition of securities. However, recognizing that the ruling “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion,” the District Court certified its order for an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit under 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b). The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, agreed with respondents that the with-drawable capital shares issued by City Savings did not fit the definition of securities in §3 (a) (10) of the Securities Exchange Act. Consequently, it ruled that the District Court was without jurisdiction in the case, and it remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. 371 E. 2d 374. Because this case presents an important question concerning the scope of the Securities Exchange Act, we granted certiorari. 387 U. S. 941. We disagree with the construction placed on § 3 (a) (10) by the Court of Appeals, and we reverse its judgment.
Section 3 (a) (10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provides:
“3. (a) When used in this title, unless the context otherwise requires—
“(10) The term ‘security’ means any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit, for a security, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a ‘security’; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker’s acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited.”
This case presents the Court with its first opportunity to construe this statutory provision. But we do not start with a blank slate. The Securities Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 74, as amended) contains a definition of security virtually identical to that contained in the 1934 Act. Consequently, we are aided in our task by our prior decisions which have considered the meaning of security under the 1933 Act. In addition, we are guided by the familiar canon of statutory construction that remedial legislation should be construed broadly to effectuate its purposes. The Securities Exchange Act quite clearly falls into the category of remedial legislation. One of its central purposes is to protect investors through the requirement of full disclosure by issuers of securities, and the definition of security in § 3 (a) (10) necessarily determines the classes of investments and investors which will receive the Act’s protections. Finally, we are reminded that, in searching for the meaning and scope of the word “security” in the Act, form should be disregarded for substance and the emphasis should be on economic reality. S. E. C. v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U. S. 293, 298 (1946).
Because City Savings’ authority to issue withdrawable capital shares is conferred by the Illinois Savings and Loan Act, we look first to the legal character imparted to those shares by that statute. The issuance of with-drawable capital shares is one of two methods by which Illinois savings and loan associations are authorized to raise capital. City Savings’ capital is represented exclusively by withdrawable capital shares. Each holder of a withdrawable capital share becomes a member of the association and is entitled to “the vote of one share for each one hundred dollars of the aggregate withdrawal value of such accounts, and shall have the vote of one share for any fraction of one hundred dollars.” The holders of withdrawable capital shares are not entitled to a fixed rate of return. Rather, they receive dividends declared by an association’s board of directors and based on the association’s profits. The power of a holder of a withdrawable capital share to make voluntary withdrawals is restricted by statute While withdrawable capital shares are declared nonnegotiable and not subject to Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code, such shares can be transferred “by written assignment accompanied by delivery of the appropriate certificate or account book.”
While Illinois law gives legal form to the withdrawable capital shares held by the petitioners, federal law must govern whether shares having such legal form constitute securities under the Securities Exchange Act. Even a casual reading of §3 (a) (10) of the 1934 Act reveals that Congress did not intend to adopt a narrow or restrictive concept of security in defining that term. As this Court observed with respect to the definition of security in § 2 (1) of the Securities Act of 1933, “the reach of the Act does not stop with the obvious and commonplace.” S. E. C. v. C. M. Joiner Corp., 320 U. S. 344, 351 (1943). As used in both the 1933 and 1934 Acts, security “embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.” S. E. C. v. W. J. Howey Co., supra, at 299. We have little difficulty fitting the withdrawable capital shares held by the petitioners into that expansive concept of security. Of the several types of instruments designated as securities by §3 (a) (10) of the 1934 Act, the petitioners’ shares most closely resemble investment contracts. “The test [for an investment contract] is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.” Id., at 301. Petitioners are participants in a common enterprise— a money-lending operation dependent for its success upon the skill and efforts of the management of City Savings in making sound loans. Because Illinois law ties the payment of dividends on withdrawable capital shares to an apportionment of profits, the petitioners can expect a return on their investment only if City Savings shows a profit. If City Savings fails to show a profit due to the lack of skill or honesty of its managers, the petitioners will receive no dividends. Similarly, the amount of dividends the petitioners can expect is tied directly to the amount of profits City Savings makes from year to year. Clearly, then, the petitioners’ withdrawable capital shares have the essential attributes of investment contracts as that term is used in § 3 (a) (10) and as it was defined in Howey. But we need not rest our decision on that conclusion alone. “Instruments may be included within any of [the Act’s] definitions, as matter of law, if on their face they answer to the name or description.” S. E. C. v. C. M. Joiner Corp., supra, at 351. The petitioners’ shares fit well within several other descriptive terms contained in §3 (a) (10). For example, the petitioners’ shares can be viewed as “certificate [s] of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement.” The shares must be evidenced by a certificate, and Illinois law makes the payment of dividends contingent upon an apportionment of profits. These same factors make the shares “stock” under § 3 (a) (10). Finally, the petitioners’ shares can be considered “transferable share[s]” since “[t]he holder of a withdrawable capital account may transfer his rights therein absolutely or conditionally to any other person eligible to hold the same.”
Our conclusion that a withdrawable capital share is a security within the meaning of § 3 (a) (10) is reinforced by the legislative history of federal securities legislation. When Congress was considering the Securities Act of 1933, representatives of the United States Building and Loan League appeared before House and Senate committees to plead the cause of the League’s members. The League’s spokesmen asked Congress for an exemption from the Act’s registration requirements for building and loan association shares. The spokesmen argued that the cost of complying with the registration, requirements whenever a building and loan association issued a new share would be prohibitive. However, the League’s spokesmen emphatically endorsed the coverage of building and loan associations under the Act’s antifraud provisions. Thus, Morton Bodfish, the League’s Executive Manager, told the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce:
“When a person saves his money in a building and loan association, he purchases shares and nearly all of our $8,000,000,000 of assets are in the form of shares ....
“The practical difficulties of an association having to register every issue of shares . . . are obvious.
“[W]e approve vigorously and are quite willing to be subject to section 13, which is the fraud section . . . ,
“Now, gentlemen, we want you to leave, the fraud sections there, just as they are, so that [if] any fraud developed in connection with the management of any of our institutions anywhere or under the name of building and loan, this law can be effective and operative.”
Congress responded to the appeals from the building and loan interests by including in §3 (a)(5) of the 1933 Act an exemption from the registration requirements for “[a]ny security issued by a building and loan association, homestead association, savings and loan association, or similar institution . . . .” It seems quite apparent that the building and loan interests would not have sought an exemption from the registration requirements and Congress would not have granted it unless there was general agreement that the Act's definition of security in § 2 (1) brought building and loan shares within the purview of the Act.
The same Congress which passed the Securities Act in 1933 approved the Securities Exchange Act in 1934, and the definition of security contained in the 1934 Act is virtually identical to that in the earlier enactment. The legislative history of the 1934 Act is silent with respect to savings and loan shares, but the Senate Report on the Act asserts that its definition of security was intended to be “substantially the same as [that contained] in the Securities Act of 1933.” S. Rep. No. 792, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 14 (1934). In addition, when Congress amended the 1934 Act in 1964 to provide for the registration of certain equity securities, it provided an exemption for “any security . . . issued by a savings and loan association . . . .” 15 U. S. C. § 781 (g)(2)(C). Thus, the 1934 Act has a pattern of coverage and exemption of savings and loan shares similar to the pattern in the 1933 Act.
We view the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the petitioners’ withdrawable capital shares are not securities as a product of misplaced emphasis. After reviewing the definition of security in §3(a) (10), the Court of Appeals stated that “[t]he type of interest now before us, if it is covered by this definition, must be an ‘instrument commonly known as a “security.” ’ ” 371 F. 2d, at 376. Thus, the Court of Appeals read the words an “instrument commonly known as a ‘security’ ” in § 3 (a) (10) as a limitation on the other descriptive terms used in the statutory definition. This, of course, is contrary to our decision in Joiner where we rejected the respondents’ invitation to “constrict the more general terms substantially to the specific terms which they follow.” 320 U. S., at 350. In addition, we cannot agree with the Court of Appeals’ analysis which led it to conclude that a withdrawable capital share is not an “instrument commonly known as a ‘security.’ ” For example, the Court of Appeals stressed that withdrawable capital shares can be issued in unlimited amounts and their holders have no pre-emptive rights. Yet the same is true of shares in mutual funds, and we have little doubt that such shares are securities within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act. The Court of Appeals also emphasized that the withdrawable capital shares are made nonnegotiable by Illinois law. This simply reflects the fact that such shares are not a usual medium for trading in the markets. The same can be said for the types of interests which we found to be securities in Howey and Joiner. The Court of Appeals noted further that the holders of withdrawable capital shares are not entitled under Illinois law to inspect the general books and records of the association. Inspection of that nature, however, is not a right which universally attaches to corporate shares. In short, the various factors highlighted by the Court of Appeals in concluding that the withdrawable capital shares are not an “instrument commonly known as a ‘security’ ” serve only to distinguish among different types of securities. They do not, standing alone, govern whether a particular instrument is a security under the federal securities laws.
The Court of Appeals thought it highly significant that the term “evidence of indebtedness” appears in the definition of security in the 1933 Act but was omitted from the definition in the 1934 Act. We cannot agree that the omission has any controlling significance in this case. For one thing, we have found other descriptive terms in § 3 (a)(10) which cover the petitioners’ withdrawable capital shares. The Court of Appeals’ emphasis on the omission of “evidence of indebtedness” from §3 (a) (10) flowed from its conclusion that the petitioners’ “relationship with the enterprise is much more that of debtor-creditor than investment.” 371 F. 2d, at 377. That assertion, however, overlooks the fact that, under Illinois law, the holder of a withdrawable capital share does not become a creditor of a savings and loan association even when he files an application for withdrawal. For this reason alone, the omission of the term “evidence of indebtedness” from § 3 (a) (10) provides no basis for concluding that Congress intended to exclude the petitioners’ withdrawable capital shares from the Act’s coverage.
The Court of Appeals sought a policy basis for its decision when it noted that the federal securities laws “were passed in the aftermath of the great economic disaster of 1929. Congress was concerned with speculation in securities which had a fluctuating value and which were traded in securities exchanges or in over-the-counter markets.” 371 F. 2d, at 377. This statement suggests, and the respondents have argued in this Court, that the petitioners’ withdrawable capital shares are not within the purview of the 1934 Act because their value normally does not fluctuate and because they are normally not traded in securities exchanges or over-the-counter. The accuracy of this assertion is open to question.. But, more important, it is irrelevant to the question before us. As was observed in Howey, “it is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or non-speculative.” 328 U. S., at 301.
Policy considerations lead us to conclude that these petitioners are entitled to the investor protections afforded by the Securities Exchange Act. We agree fully with the following observations made by Judge Cummings in his dissent below:
“The investors in City Savings were less able to protect themselves than the purchasers of orange groves in Howey. These [petitioners] had to rely completely on City Savings’ management to choose suitable properties on which to make mortgage loans. . . . The members of City Savings were widely scattered. Many of them probably invested in City Savings on the ground that their money would be safer than in stocks. . . . Because savings and loan associations are constantly seeking investors through advertising . . . the SEC’s present tender of its expert services should be especially beneficial to would-be savings and loan investors as a shield against unscrupulous or unqualified promoters.” 371 F. 2d, at 384-385.
The respondents have argued that we should not declare the petitioners’ withdrawable capital shares securities under §3(a)(10) because the petitioners, if they are successful in their suit for rescission, will gain an unfair advantage over other investors in City Savings in the distribution of the limited assets of that Association, which is now in liquidation. This argument, at best, is a non sequitur. This case in its present posture involves no issue of priority of claims against City Savings. This case involves only the threshold question of whether a federal court has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioners — a question which turns on our construction of the term “security” as defined by § 3 (a) (10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It is totally irrelevant to that narrow question of statutory construction that these petitioners, if they are successful in their federal suit, might have rights in the limited assets of City Savings superior to those of other investors in that Association.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 32, §§ 701-944.
The members of the class were identified in the complaint as “more than 5,000 investors [who] have purchased securities [i. e., withdrawable capital shares] of City Savings since July 23, 1959 . . . The total investment of the class members was alleged to amount to “between fifteen and twenty million dollars.”
The state officials had acted under the authority of Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 32, § 848. The record does not disclose the precise reason for placing City Savings under state custody. However, the complaint filed in the District Court and the petitioners’ brief in this Court suggest that City Savings has been the victim of mismanagement of major proportions.
The voluntary plan of liquidation was formally approved four days after the petitioners had filed their complaint. However, the three liquidators had been nominated prior to the filing of the complaint, and their election had been a foregone conclusion. Voluntary liquidation is authorized bj' Ill. Rev. Stat., e. 32, Art. 9.
15 U. S. C. §78e (a) (10).
15 TJ. S. C. §78j (b).
17 CFR § 240.10b-5.
“2. When used in this title, unless the context otherwise requires—
“(1) The term ‘security’ means any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of int'erest or partieipation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a ‘security’. . . .” 48 Stat. 905.
S. E. C. v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co., 387 U. S. 202 (1967); 8. E. C. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 359 U. S. 65 (1959); S. E. C. v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U. S. 293 (1946); and S. E. C. v. C. M. Joiner Corp., 320 U. S. 344 (1943).
The Securities Exchange Act was a product of a lengthy and highly publicized investigation by the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency into stock market practices and the reasons for the stock market crash of October 1929. See Loomis, The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 28 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 214, 216-217 (1960).
“The capital of an association may be represented by with-drawable capital accounts (shares and share accounts) or permanent reserve shares, or both . . . Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 32, § 761 (a). “Permanent reserve shares shall constitute a secondary reserve out .of which losses shall be paid after all other available reserves have been exhausted . . . .” Id., § 763.
Id., §741 (a)(1).
Id., §742 (d)(2). Each borrower from a savings and loan association automatically becomes a member of the association, id., §741 (a)(2), but is entitled to only one vote, id., §742 (d)(4).
Id., §778 (c). The directors are required to apportion an association’s profits at least annually.
Id., §773.
Id., §768 (c).
Id., §768 (b).
Cf. S. E. C. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 359 U. S. 65, 69.
“[T]he term 'security’ [in the Securities Act of 1933 is defined] in sufficiently broad and general terms so as to include within that definition the many types of instruments that in our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security.” H. It. Rep. No. 85, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1933).
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 32, § 778.
The Court of Appeals refused to apply the Howey test in this case. It did not view the petitioners as entering a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others because “profit is derived from loans to other members of the savings and loan association.” 371 F. 2d, at 377. That analysis, however, places too much emphasis on the fact that, under Illinois law, anyone who borrows from a savings and loan association automatically becomes a member of the association. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 32, § 741 (a) (2). It also overlooks the several other classes of investments which Illinois savings and loan associations are authorized to make. Id,., §§ 792-792.10.
Id., §768 (a).
Id., § 768 (b).
Hearings on H. H. 4314 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., 70-75 (1933) (testimony of Morton Bodfish, Executive Manager, United States Building and Loan League); Hearings on S. 875 before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., 50-54 (1933) (testimony of C. Clinton James, Chairman, Federal Legislative Committee of the United States Building and Loan League).
Hearings on H. B.. 4314, supra, at 71.
Id,., at 73.
Id., at 74.
15 U. S. C. §77e (a) (5).
The view expressed by the building and loan association interests in 1933 has not changed over the years. The United States Savings and Loan League, in its Membership Bulletin, made the following comments on the Court’s decision to hear this case:
“This case is not necessarily as significant and earth shaking in its implications as many savings and loan people assume. In the first place the savings and loan business always has assumed that it was subject to the antifraud provisions of the Securities Acts relating to advertising practices, etc. Regardless of how this case goes it does not mean that savings and loan associations will be any more involved with the SEC than they have been in the past. It does not mean that associations would have to register with the SEC and be subject to all of the rules that apply to typical securities transactions.”
United States Savings and Loan League, Membership Bulletin, June 28, 1967, p. 15.
The Court of Appeals rejected the view that we take of the legislative history of federal securities legislation with respect to savings and loan association shares. In effect, the Court of Appeals viewed Congress’ exemption of savings and loan shares from the registration requirements as what Professor Loss calls “supererogation.” 1 Loss, Securities Regulation 497 (2d ed. 1961). The Court of Appeals based its argument on the analogy it drew between ordinary insurance policies, which are also exempted from the 1933 Act’s registration provisions, and savings and loan shares. The analogy, however, is inappropriate. Congress specifically stated that “insurance policies are not to be regarded as securities subject to the provisions of the act,” H. R. Rep. No. 85, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., 15 (1933), and the exemption from registration for insurance policies was clearly supererogation. See S. E. C. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 359 U. S. 65, 74, n. 4. The same cannot be said for savings and loan shares, particularly when the spokesmen for those who issue savings and loan shares had told Congress they fully expected to be covered by the 1933 Act’s antifraud provisions.
In Howey, this Court ruled that interests in orange groves were securities under the 1933 .Act. In Joiner, it held that oil leases were securities under the Act.
See Baker & Cary, Cases and Materials on Corporations 739-741 (3d ed. 1958).
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 32, §773 (f).
The SEC, in its brief amicus curiae submitted in this case, points out that it granted a temporary exemption from §§ 7, 8, 12, and 13 of the 1934 Act to passbooks of savings and loan associations, which were being traded on the Cleveland Stock Exchange shortly after the Act’s passage. The SEC also points out that it has repeatedly enforced the Act’s registration provisions against brokers and dealers whose business includes the solicitation of funds for deposit in savings and loan associations. Brief for the SEC 22-24.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, defines the term “make and enforce contracts” as used in § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Rev. Stat. § 1977, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, to include “the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” We granted certiorari to decide whether § 101 applies to a case that arose before it was enacted. We hold that it does not.
I
Petitioners Rivers and Davison were employed by respondent Roadway Express, Inc., as garage mechanics. Oh the morning of August 22, 1986, a supervisor directed them to attend disciplinary hearings later that day. Because they had not received the proper notice guaranteed by their collective-bargaining agreement, petitioners refused to attend. They were suspended for two days, but filed grievances and were awarded two days’ backpay. Respondent then held another disciplinary hearing, which petitioners also refused to attend, again on the ground that they had not received proper notice. Respondent thereupon discharged them.
On December 22, 1986, petitioners filed a complaint alleging that respondent had discharged them because of their race in violation of 42 U. S. C. § 1981. They claimed, inter alia, that they had been fired on baseless charges because of their race and because they had insisted on the same procedural protections afforded white employees.
On June 15, 1989, before the trial commenced, this Court announced its decision in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164. Patterson held that § 1981 “does not apply to conduct which occurs after the formation of a contract and which does not interfere with the right to enforce established contract obligations.” Id., at 171. Relying on Patterson, the District Court held that none of petitioners’ discriminatory discharge claims were covered by §1981, and dismissed their claims under that section. After a bench trial on petitioners’ Title VII claims, the District Court found that petitioners had been discharged for reasons other than their race, and entered judgment for respondent.
On appeal, petitioners contended that the District Court had misconstrued their complaint: They had not merely claimed discriminatory discharge, but more specifically had alleged that respondent had retaliated against them, because of their race, for attempting to enforce their procedural rights under the collective-bargaining agreement. Because that allegation related to “enforcement” of the labor contract, petitioners maintained, it stated a § 1981 claim even under Patterson’s construction of the statute. While petitioners’ appeal was pending, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act or Act) became law. Section 101 of that Act provides that § 1981’s prohibition against racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts applies to all phases and incidents of the contractual relationship, including discriminatory contract terminations. Petitioners accordingly filed a supplemental brief advancing the argument that the new statute applied in their case. The Court of Appeals agreed with petitioners’ first contention but not the second. Accordingly, it ruled that §1981 as interpreted in Patterson, not as amended by § 101, governed the case and remanded for a jury trial limited to petitioners’ discrimination-in-contract-enforcement claim. See Harris v. Roadway Express, Inc., 973 F. 2d 490 (CA6 1992).
We granted certiorari, 507 U. S. 908 (1993), on the sole question whether § 101 of the 1991 Act applies to cases pending when it was enacted and set the case for argument with Landgraf v. USI Film Products, ante, p. 244.
II
In Landgraf, we concluded that § 102 of the 1991 Act does not apply to cases that arose before its enactment. The reasons supporting that conclusion also apply to § 101, and require rejection of two of petitioners’ submissions in this case. First, these petitioners, like the petitioner in Landgraf, rely heavily on a negative implication argument based on §§ 402(a), 109(c), and 402(b) of the Act. That argument, however, is no more persuasive as to the application of § 101 to preenactment conduct than as to that of § 102. See ante, at 257-263.
Second, petitioners argue that the case is governed by Bradley v. School Bd. of Richmond, 416 U. S. 696 (1974), rather than the presumption against statutory retroactivity. We are persuaded, however, that the presumption is even more clearly applicable to § 101 than to § 102. Section 102 altered the liabilities of employers under Title VII by subjecting them to expanded monetary liability, but it did not alter the normative scope of Title VII’s prohibition on workplace discrimination. In contrast, because §101 amended § 1981 to embrace all aspects of the contractual relationship, including contract terminations, it enlarged the category of conduct that is subject to § 1981 liability.
Moreover, § 1981 (and hence § 101) is not limited to employment; because it covers all contracts, see, e. g., Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160 (1976), Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn., Inc., 410 U. S. 431 (1973), a substantial part of § 101’s sweep does not overlap Title VIL In short, § 101 has the effect not only of increasing liability but also of establishing a new standard of conduct. Accordingly, for reasons we stated in Landgraf, the important new legal obligations § 101 imposes bring it within the class of laws that are presumptively prospective.
Ill
Petitioners rely heavily on an argument that was not applicable to § 102 of the 1991 Act, the section at issue in Landgraf. They contend that § 101 should apply to their case because it was “restorative” of the understanding of § 1981 that prevailed before our decision in Patterson. Petitioners advance two variations on this theme: Congress’ evident purpose to “restore” pre-Patterson law indicates that it affirmatively intended §101 to apply to cases arising before its enactment; moreover, there is a “presumption in favor of application of restorative statutes” to cases arising before their enactment. Brief for Petitioners 37.
A
Congress’ decision to alter the rule of law established in one of our cases — as petitioners put it, to “legislatively overrule],” see id., at 38 — does not, by itself, reveal whether Congress intends the “overruling” statute to apply retroactively to events that would otherwise be governed by the judicial decision. A legislative response does not necessarily indicate that Congress viewed the judicial decision as “wrongly decided” as an interpretive matter. Congress may view the judicial decision as an entirely correct reading of prior law — or it may be altogether indifferent to the decision’s technical merits — but may nevertheless decide that the old law should be amended, but only for the future. Of course, Congress may also decide to announce a new rule that operates retroactively to govern the rights of parties whose rights would otherwise be subject to the rule announced in the judicial decision. Because retroactivity raises special policy concerns, the choice to enact a statute that responds to a judicial decision is quite distinct from the choice to make the responding statute retroactive.
Petitioners argue that the structure and legislative history of § 101 indicate that Congress specifically intended to “restore” prior law even as to parties whose rights would otherwise have been determined according to Patterson’s interpretation of § 1981. Thus, § 101 operates as a gloss on the terms “make and enforce contracts,” the original language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that was before this Court in Patterson. Petitioners also point to evidence in the 1991 Act’s legislative history indicating legislators’ distress with Patterson’s construction of §1981 and their view that our decision had narrowed a previously established understanding of that provision. Taken together, petitioners argue, this evidence shows that it was Congress’ sense that Patterson had cut back the proper scope of § 1981, and that the new legislation would restore its proper scope. Regardless of whether that sense was right or wrong as a technical legal matter, petitioners maintain, we should give it effect by applying § 101’s broader definition of what it means to “make and enforce” a contract, rather than Patterson’s congressionally disapproved reading, to cases pending upon § 101’s enactment.
We may assume, as petitioners argue, that § 101 reflects congressional disapproval of Patterson’s interpretation of § 1981. We may even assume that many or even most legislators believed that Patterson was not only incorrectly decided but also represented a departure from the previously prevailing understanding of the reach of § 1981. Those assumptions would readily explain why Congress might have wanted to legislate retroactively, thereby providing relief for the persons it believed had been wrongfully denied a § 1981 remedy. Even on those assumptions, however, we cannot find in the 1991 Act any clear expression of congressional intent to reach cases that arose before its enactment.
The 1990 civil rights bill that was vetoed by the President contained an amendment to § 1981, identical to § 101 of the 1991 Act, that assuredly would have applied to pending cases. See Civil Rights Act of 1990, S. 2104, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., § 12 (1990). See also Landgraf, ante, at 255-256, n. 8. In its statement of purposes, the bill unambiguously declared that it was intended to “respond to the Supreme Court’s recent decisions by restoring the civil rights protections that were dramatically limited by those decisions,” S. 2104, § 2(b)(1) (emphasis added), and the section responding to Patterson was entitled “Restoring Prohibition Against All Racial Discrimination in the Making and Enforcement of Contracts.” Id., § 12 (emphasis added). More directly, § 15(a)(6) of the 1990 bill expressly provided that the amendment to § 1981 “shall apply to all proceedings pending on or commenced after” the date of the Patterson decision.
The statute that was actually enacted in 1991 contains no comparable language. Instead of a reference to “restoring” pre-existing rights, its statement of purposes describes the Act’s function as “expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination.” 1991 Act, § 3(4), 105 Stat. 1071 (emphasis added). Consistently with that revised statement • of purposes, the Act lacks any direct reference to cases arising before its enactment, or to the date of the Patterson decision. Taken by itself, the fact that § 101 is framed as a gloss on §1981’s original “make and enforce contracts” does not demonstrate an intent to apply the new definition to past acts. Altering statutory definitions, or adding new definitions of terms previously undefined, is a common way of amending statutes, and simply does not answer the retroactivity question. Thus, the text of the Act does not support the argument that §101 of the 1991 Act was intended to “restore” prior understandings of § 1981 as to cases arising before the 1991 Act’s passage.
The legislative history of the 1991 Act does not bridge the gap in the text. The statements that most strongly support such coverage are found in the debates on the 1990 bill. See n. 6, supra. Such statements are of questionable relevance to the 1991 Act, however, because the 1990 provision contained express retroactivity provisions that were omitted from the 1991 legislation. The statements relating specifically to § 101 of the 1991 Act do not provide reliable evidence on whether Congress intended to “restore” a broader meaning of § 1981 with respect to pending cases otherwise governed by Patterson’s construction of the scope of the phrase “make and enforce contracts.” Thus, the fact that §101 was enacted in response to Patterson does not supply sufficient evidence of a clear congressional intent to overcome the presumption against statutory retroactivity.
B
A lack of clear congressional intent would not be dispositive if, as petitioners argue, § 101 is the kind of restorative statute that should presumptively be applied to pending cases. Petitioners maintain that restorative statutes do not implicate fairness concerns relating to retroactivity at least when, as is the case in this litigation, the new statute simply enacts a rule that the parties believed to be the law when they acted. Indeed, amici in support of petitioners contend, fairness concerns positively favor application of § 101 to pending cases because the effect of the Patterson decision was to cut off, after the fact, rights of action under § 1981 that had been widely recognized in the lower courts, and under which many victims of discrimination had won damages judgments prior to Patterson. See Brief for NAACP et al. as Amici Curiae 7-14.
Notwithstanding the equitable appeal of petitioners’ argument, we are convinced that it cannot carry the day. Our decisions simply do not support the proposition that we have espoused a “presumption” in favor of retroactive application of restorative statutes. Petitioners invoke Frisbie v. Whitney, 9 Wall. 187 (1870), which involved a federal statute that enabled Frisbie and others to acquire property they had occupied and thought they owned prior to 1862, when, in another case, this Court held that the original grant of title by the Mexican Government was void. The new law in effect “restored” rights that Frisbie reasonably and in good faith thought he possessed before the surprising announcement of our decision. In the Frisbie case, however, the question was whether Congress had the power to enact legislation that had the practical effect of restoring the status quo retroactively. As the following passage from Frisbie demonstrates, there was no question about Congress’ actual intent:
“We say the benefits it designed to confer, because we entertain no doubt of the intention of Congress to secure to persons situated as Frisbie was, the title to their lands, on compliance with the terms of the act, and if this has not been done it is solely because Congress had no power to enact the law in question.” Id., at 192 (emphasis in original).
Petitioners also point to Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160 (1865). There, a statute admitting Nevada to the Union had failed to provide for jurisdiction over cases arising from Nevada Territory that were pending before this Court when Nevada achieved statehood. We upheld against constitutional attack a subsequent statute explicitly curing the “accidental impediment” to our jurisdiction over such cases. See id., at 173-175.
In the case before us today, however, we do not, question the power of Congress to apply its definition of the- term' “make and enforce contracts” to cases arising before the' 1991 Act became effective, or, indeed, to those that were pending on June 15, 1989, when Patterson was decided. The question is whether Congress has manifested such an intent. Unlike the narrow error-correcting statutes at issue in Frisbie and Freeborn, § 101 is plainly not the sort of provision that must be read to apply to pending cases “because a contrary reading would render it ineffective.” Landgraf, ante, at 286. Section 101 is readily comprehensible, and entirely effective, even if it applies only to conduct occurring after its effective date. A restorative purpose may be relevant to whether Congress specifically intended a new statute to govern past conduct, but we do not “presume” an intent to act retroactively in such cases. We still require clear evidence of intent to impose the restorative statute “retroactively.” Section 101, and the statute of which it is a part, does not contain such evidence.
“The principle that statutes operate only prospectively, while judicial decisions operate retrospectively, is familiar to every law student,” United States v. Security Industrial Bank, 459 U. S. 70, 79 (1982), and this case illustrates the second half of that principle as well as the first. Even though applicable Sixth Circuit precedents were otherwise when this dispute arose, the District Court properly applied Patterson to this case. See Harper v. Virginia Dept, of Taxation, 509 U. S. 86, 97 (1993) (“When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule”). See also Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co., 215 U. S. 349, 372 (1910) (“Judicial decisions have had retrospective operation for near a thousand years”) (Holmes, J., dissenting). The essence of judicial decisionmaking — applying general rules to particular situations — necessarily involves some peril to individual expectations because it is often difficult to predict the precise application of a general rule until it has been distilled in the crucible of litigation. See L. Fuller, Morality of Law 56 (1964) (“No system of law — whether it be judge-made or legislatively enacted — can be so perfectly drafted as to leave no room for dispute”).
Patterson did not overrule any prior decision of this Court; rather, it held and therefore established that the prior decisions of the Courts of Appeals which read § 1981 to cover discriminatory contract termination were incorrect. They were not wrong according to some abstract standard of interpretive validity, but by the rules that necessarily govern our hierarchical federal court system. Cf. Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in result). It is this Court’s responsibility to say what a statute means, and once the Court has spoken, it is the duty of other courts to respect that understanding of the governing rule of law. A judicial construction of a statute is an authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after the decision of the case giving rise to that construction. Thus, Patterson provides the authoritative interpretation of the phrase “make and enforce contracts” in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 before the 1991 amendment went into effect on November 21,1991. That interpretation provides the baseline for our conclusion that the 1991 amendment would be “retroactive” if applied to cases arising before that date.
Congress, of course, has the power to amend a statute that it believes we have misconstrued. It may even, within broad constitutional bounds, make such a change retroactive and thereby undo what it perceives to be the undesirable past consequences of a misinterpretation of its work product. No such change, however, has the force of law unless it is implemented through legislation. Even when Congress intends to supersede a rule of law embodied in one of our decisions with what it views as a better rule established in earlier decisions, its intent to reach conduct preceding the “corrective” amendment must clearly appear. We cannot say that such an intent clearly appears with respect to § 101. For this reason, and because it creates liabilities that had no legal existence before the Act was passed, §101 does not apply to preenactment conduct.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[For opinion of Justice Scalia concurring in the judgment, see ante, p. 286.]
Petitioners’ amended complaint also alleged claims against respondent under the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 157, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 185(a), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., as well as claims against their union. Those claims are not before us.
The full text of § 101, which is entitled “Prohibition Against All Racial Discrimination in the Making And Enforcement of Contracts,” reads as follows:
“Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U. S. C. 1981) is amended—
“(1) by inserting ‘(a)’ before ‘All persons within’; and
“(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
“(b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘make and enforce contracts’ includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
“(c) The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.”
Prior to the 1991 amendment, § 1981 provided:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
The history of § 1981, which is sometimes cited as § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, is set forth in Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 168-170, and n. 8 (1976).
Even in the employment context, §lS81’s coverage is broader than Title VIPs, for Title VII applies only to employers with 15 or more employees, see 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(b), whereas § 1981 has no such limitation.
See Brief for Petitioners 35 (“Congress sought to restore what it and virtually all the lower courts thought had been the reach of § 1981 prior to Patterson”).
Congress frequently “responds” to judicial decisions construing statutes, and does so for a variety of reasons. According to one commentator, between 1967 and 1990, the Legislature “overrode” our decisions at an average of “ten per Congress.” Eskridge, Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions, 101 Yale L. J. 331,338 (1991). Seldom if ever has Congress responded to so many decisions in a single piece of legislation as it did in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, ante, at 250-251.
Thus, for example, the Senate Report on the 1990 civil rights bill that was passed by Congress but vetoed by the President stated:
“The Patterson decision sharply cut back on the scope and effectiveness of section 1981, with profoundly negative consequences both in the employment context and elsewhere. As a result of the decision, the more than 11 million employees in firms that are not covered by Title VII lack any protection against racial harassment and other forms of race discrimination on the job.
“Since Patterson was announced, more than 200 claims of race discrimination have been dismissed by federal courts as a result of the decision. Statement of Julius LeVonne Chambers, Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (March 9, 1990). Many persons subjected to blatant bigotry lack any means to obtain relief
“The Committee finds that there is a compelling need for legislation to overrule the Patterson decision and ensure that federal law prohibits all race discrimination in contracts.” S. Rep. No. 101-315, pp. 12-14 (1990). Congress’ concern with the effects of the Patterson decision in specific cases, including cases in which plaintiffs had won judgments only to have them reversed after Patterson came down, see S. Rep. No. 315, at 13-14, doubtless explains why the 1990 legislation contained a special provision for the reopening of judgments. See Civil Rights Act of 1990, S. 2104, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., § 15(b)(3) (1990); see also Landgraf ante, at 255-256, n. 8. Petitioners do not argue that the 1991 Act should be read to reach cases finally decided.
We do not suggest that Congress’ use of the word “restore” necessarily bespeaks an intent to restore retroactively. For example, Congress might, in response to a judicial decision that construed a criminal statute narrowly, amend the legislation to broaden its scope; the preamble or legislative history of the amendment might state that it was intended to “restore” the statute to its originally intended scope. In such a situation, there would be no need to read Congress’ use of the word “restore” as an attempt to circumvent the Ex Post Facto Clause. Instead, “to restore” might sensibly be read as meaning “to correct, from now on.” The 1990 bill did not suffer from such ambiguity, however, for it contained other provisions that made pellucidly clear that Congress contemplated the broader, retroactive kind of “restoration.”
The legislative history of the 1991 Act reveals conflicting views about whether §101 would “restore” or instead “enlarge” the original scope of § 1981. Compare, e. g., 137 Cong. Rec. H9526 (Nov. 7, 1991) (remarks of Rep. Edwards), with id., at H9543 (Nov. 7, 1991) (remarks of Rep. Hyde). The history also includes some debate over the proper test for courts to apply — specifically, the “Bradley” presumption or the “Bowen” presumption, see Landgraf, ante, at 263-265 — to determine the applicability of the various provisions of the Act to pending cases. Compare, e. g., 137 Cong. Rec. 30340 (1991) (remarks of Sen. Kennedy) (citing Bradley test), with id., at 29043-29044 (remarks of Sen. Danforth) (favoring Bowen test). As we noted in Landgraf, ante, at 262-263, the legislative history reveals that retroactivity was recognized as an important and controversial issue, but that history falls far short of providing evidence of an agreement among legislators on the subject.
They point out that respondent has no persuasive claim to unfair surprise, because, at the time the allegedly discriminatory discharge occurred, the Sixth Circuit precedent held that § 1981 could support a claim for discriminatory contract termination. See, e. g., Cooper v. North Olmstead, 795 F. 2d 1265,1270, n. 3 (1986); Leonard v. City of Frankfort Elec, and Water Plant Bd., 752 F. 2d 189,195 (1985). See also Mozee v. American Commercial Marine Service Co., 963 F. 2d 929, 941 (CA7 1992) (Cudahy, J., dissenting); Gersman v. Group Health Assn., Inc., 975 F. 2d 886, 907-908 (CADC 1992) (Wald, J., dissenting), cert, pending, No. 92-1190. We note, however, that this argument would not apply to any cases arising after Patterson was decided but before the 1991 Act’s enactment.
See United States v. Vallejo, 1 Black 541 (1862). In his dissent in that case, Justice Grier stated that he could not “agree to confiscate the property of some thousand of our fellow-citizens, who have purchased under this title and made improvements to the value of many millions, on suspicions first raised here as to the integrity of a grant universally acknowledged to be genuine in the country where it originated.” Id., at 555-556 (emphasis in original).
See N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction §27.04, p. 472 (5th ed. 1993) (“The usual purpose of a special interpretive statute is to correct a judicial interpretation of a prior law which the legislature considers inaccurate. Where such statutes are given any effect, the effect is prospective only”).
When Congress enacts a new statute, it has the power to decide when the statute will become effective. The new statute may govern from the date of enactment, from a specified future date, or even from an expressly announced earlier date. But when this Court construes a statute, it is explaining its understanding of what the statute has meant continuously since the date when it became law. In statutory cases the Court has no authority to depart from the congressional command setting the effective date of a law that it has enacted. Thus, it is not accurate to say that the Court’s decision in Patterson “changed” the law that previously prevailed in the Sixth Circuit when this case was filed. Rather, given the structure of our judicial system, the Patterson opinion finally decided what § 1981 had always meant and explained why the Courts of Appeals had misinterpreted the will of the enacting Congress.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We granted certiorari to decide whether it violates the Fourth Amendment for the United States Customs Service to require a urinalysis test from employees who seek transfer or promotion to certain positions.
I
A
The United States Customs Service, a bureau of the Department of the Treasury, is the federal agency responsible for processing persons, carriers, cargo, and mail into the United States, collecting revenue from imports, and enforcing customs and related laws. See United States Customs Service, Customs U. S. A., Fiscal Year 1985, p. 4. An important responsibility of the Service is the interdiction and seizure of contraband, including illegal drugs. Ibid. In 1987 alone, Customs agents seized drugs with a retail value of nearly $9 billion. See United States Customs Service, Customs U. S. A., Fiscal Year 1987, p. 40. In the routine discharge of their duties, many Customs employees have direct contact with those who traffic in drugs for profit. Drug import operations, often directed by sophisticated criminal syndicates, United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 561-562 (1980) (Powell, J., concurring), may be effected by violence or its threat. As a necessary response, many Customs operatives carry and use firearms in connection with their official duties. App. 109.
In December 1985, respondent, the Commissioner of Customs, established a Drug Screening Task Force to explore the possibility of implementing a drug-screening program within the Service. Id., at 11. After extensive research and consultation with experts in the field, the task force concluded that “drug screening through urinalysis is technologically reliable, valid and accurate.” Ibid. Citing this conclusion, the Commissioner announced his intention to require drug tests of employees who applied for, or occupied, certain positions within the Service. Id., at 10-11. The Commissioner stated his belief that “Customs is largely drug-free,” but noted also that “unfortunately no segment of society is immune from the threat of illegal drug use.” Id., at 10. Drug interdiction has become the agency’s primary enforcement mission, and the Commissioner stressed that “there is no room in the Customs Service for those who break the laws prohibiting the possession and use of illegal drugs.” Ibid.
In May 1986, the Commissioner announced implementation of the drug-testing program. Drug tests were made a condition of placement or employment for positions that meet one or more of three criteria. The first is direct involvement in drug interdiction or enforcement of related laws, an activity the Commissioner deemed fraught with obvious dangers to the mission of the agency and the lives of Customs agents. Id., at 17, 113. The second criterion is a requirement that the incumbent carry firearms, as the Commissioner concluded that “[pjublic safety demands that employees who carry deadly arms and are prepared to make instant life or death decisions be drug free.” Id., at 113. The third criterion is a requirement for the incumbent to handle “classified” material, which the Commissioner determined might fall into the hands of smugglers if accessible to employees who, by reason of their own illegal drug use, are susceptible to bribery or blackmail. Id., at 114.
After an employee qualifies for a position covered by the Customs testing program, the Service advises him by letter that his final selection is contingent upon successful completion of drug screening. An independent contractor contacts the employee to fix the time and place for collecting the sample. On reporting for the test, the employee must produce photographic identification and remove any outer garments, such as a coat or a jacket, and personal belongings. The employee may produce the sample behind a partition, or in the privacy of a bathroom stall if he so chooses. To ensure against adulteration of the specimen, or substitution of a sample from another person, a monitor of the same sex as the employee remains close at hand to listen for the normal sounds of urination. Dye is added to the toilet water to prevent the employee from using the water to adulterate the sample.
Upon receiving the specimen, the monitor inspects it to ensure its proper temperature and color, places a tamper-proof custody seal over the container, and affixes an identification label indicating the date and the individual’s specimen number. The employee signs a chain-of-custody form, which is initialed by the monitor, and the urine sample is placed in a plastic bag, sealed, and submitted to a laboratory.
The laboratory tests the sample for the presence of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine. Two tests are used. An initial screening test uses the enzyme-multiplied-immunoassay technique (EMIT). Any specimen that is identified as positive on this initial test must then be confirmed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Confirmed positive results are reported to a “Medical Review Officer,” “[a] licensed physician... who has knowledge of substance abuse disorders and has appropriate medical training to interpret and evaluate an individual’s positive test result together with his or her medical history and any other relevant biomedical information.” HHS Reg. § 1.2, 53 Fed. Reg. 11980 (1988); HHS Reg. §2.4(g), 53 Fed. Reg., at 11983. 'After verifying the positive result, the Medical Review Officer transmits it to the agency.
Customs employees.who test positive for drugs and who can offer no satisfactory explanation are subject to dismissal from the Service. Test results may not, however, be turned over to any other agency, including criminal prosecutors, without the employee’s written consent.
B
Petitioners, a union of federal employees and a union official, commenced this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of current Customs Service employees who seek covered positions. Petitioners alleged that the Custom Service drug-testing program violated, inter alia, the Fourth Amendment. The District Court agreed. 649 F. Supp. 380 (1986). The court acknowledged “the legitimate governmental interest in a drug-free work place and work force,” but concluded that “the drug testing plan constitutes an overly intrusive policy of searches and seizures without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, in violation of legitimate expectations of privacy.” Id., at 387. The court enjoined the drug-testing program, and ordered the Customs Service not to require drug tests of any applicants for covered positions.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the injunction. 816 F. 2d 170 (1987). The court agreed with petitioners that the drug-screening program, by requiring an employee to produce a urine sample for chemical testing, effects a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The court held further that the searches required by the Commissioner’s directive are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It first noted that “[t]he Service has attempted to minimize the intrusiveness of the search” by not requiring visual observation of the act of urination and by affording notice to the employee that he will be tested. Id., at 177. The court also considered it significant that the program limits discretion in determining which employees are to be tested, ibid., and noted that the tests are an aspect of the employment relationship, id., at 178.
The court further found that the Government has a strong interest in detecting drug use among employees who meet the criteria of the Customs program. It reasoned that drug use by covered employees casts substantial doubt on their ability to discharge their duties honestly and vigorously, undermining public confidence in the integrity of the Service and concomitantly impairing the Service’s efforts to enforce the drug laws. Ibid. Illicit drug users, the court found, are susceptible to bribery and blackmail, may be tempted to divert for their own use portions of any drug shipments they interdict, and may, if required to carry firearms, “endanger the safety of their fellow agents, as well as their own, when their performance is impaired by drug use.” Ibid. “Considering the nature and responsibilities of the jobs for which applicants are being considered at Customs and the limited scope of the search,” the court stated, “the exaction of consent as a condition of assignment to the new job is not unreasonable.” Id., at 179.
The dissenting judge concluded that the Customs program is not an effective method for achieving the Service’s goals. He argued principally that an employee “given a five day notification of a test date need only abstain from drug use to prevent being identified as a user.” Id., at 184. He noted also that persons already employed in sensitive positions are not subject to the test. Ibid. Because he did not believe the Customs program can achieve its purposes, the dissenting judge found it unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
We granted certiorari. 485 U. S. 903 (1988). We now affirm so much of the judgment of the Court of Appeals as upheld the testing of employees directly involved in drug interdiction or required to carry firearms. We vacate the judgment to the extent it upheld the testing of applicants for positions requiring the incumbent to handle classified materials, and remand for further proceedings. II
hH
In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., ante, at 616-618, decided today, we held that federal regulations requiring employees of private railroads to produce urine samples for chemical testing implicate the Fourth Amendment, as those tests invade reasonable expectations of privacy. Our earlier cases have settled that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches conducted by the Government, even when the Government acts as an employer, O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709, 717 (1987) (plurality opinion); see id., at 731 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), and, in view of our holding in Railway Labor Executives that urine tests are searches, it follows that the Customs Service’s drug-testing program must meet the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
While we have often emphasized, and reiterate today, that a search must be supported, as a general matter, by a warrant issued upon probable cause, see, e. g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U. S. 868, 873 (1987); United States v. Karo, 468 U. S. 705, 717 (1984), our decision in Railway Labor Executives reaffirms the longstanding principle that neither a warrant nor probable cause, nor, indeed, any measure of individualized suspicion, is an indispensable component of reasonableness in every circumstance. Ante, at 618-624. See also New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 342, n. 8 (1985); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 556-661 (1976). As we note in Railway Labor Executives, our cases establish that where a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual’s privacy expectations against the Government’s interests to determine whether it is impractical to require a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context. Ante, at 619-620.
It is clear that the Customs Service’s drug-testing program is not designed to serve the ordinary needs of law enforcement. Test results may not be used in a criminal prosecution of the employee without the employee’s consent. The purposes of the program are to deter drug use among those eligible for promotion to sensitive positions within the Service and to prevent the promotion of drug users to those positions. These substantial interests, no less than the Government’s concern for safe rail transportation at issue in Railway Labor Executives, present a special need that may justify departure from the ordinary warrant and probable-cause requirements.
A
Petitioners do not contend that a warrant is required by the balance of privacy and governmental interests in this context, nor could any such contention withstand scrutiny. We have recognized before that requiring the Government to procure a warrant for every work-related intrusion “would conflict with ‘the common-sense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter.’” O’Connor v. Ortega, supra, at 722, quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 143 (1983). See also 480 U. S., at 732 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); New Jersey v. T. L. O., supra, at 340 (noting that “[t]he warrant requirement... is unsuited to the school environment: requiring a teacher to obtain a warrant before searching a child suspected of an infraction of school rules (or of the criminal law) would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools”). Even if Customs Service employees are more likely to be familiar with the procedures required to obtain a warrant than most other Government workers, requiring a warrant in this context would serve only to divert valuable agency resources from the Service’s primary mission. The Customs Service has been entrusted with pressing responsibilities, and its mission would be compromised if it were required to seek search warrants in connection with routine, yet sensitive, employment decisions.
Furthermore, a warrant would provide little or nothing in the way of additional protection of personal privacy. A warrant serves primarily to advise the citizen that an intrusion is authorized by law and limited in its permissible scope and to interpose a neutral magistrate between the citizen and the law enforcement officer “engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14 (1948). But in the present context, “the circumstances justifying toxicological testing and the permissible limits of such intrusions are defined narrowly and specifically..., and doubtless are well known to covered employees.” Ante, at 622. Under the Customs program, every employee who seeks a transfer to a covered position knows that he must take a drug test, and is likewise aware of the procedures the Service must follow in administering the test. A covered employee is simply not subject “to the discretion of the official in the field.” Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 532 (1967). The process becomes automatic when the employee elects to apply for, and thereafter pursue, a covered position. Because the Service does not make a discretionary determination to search based on a judgment that certain conditions are present, there are simply “no special facts for a neutral magistrate to evaluate.” South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364, 383 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring).
B
Even where it is reasonable to dispense with the warrant requirement in the particular circumstances, a search ordinarily must be based on probable cause. Ante, at 624. Our cases teach, however, that the probable-cause standard “ ‘is peculiarly related to criminal investigations.’” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U. S. 367, 371 (1987), quoting South Dakota v. Opperman, supra, at 370, n. 5. In particular, the traditional probable-cause standard may be unhelpful in analyzing the reasonableness of routine administrative functions, Colorado v. Bertine, supra, at 371; see also O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S., at 723, especially where the Government seeks to prevent the development of hazardous conditions or to detect violations that rarely generate articulable grounds for searching any particular place or person. Cf. Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, supra, at 535-536 (noting that building code inspections, unlike searches conducted pursuant to a criminal investigation, are designed “to prevent even the unintentional development of conditions which are hazardous to public health and safety”); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S., at 557 (noting that requiring particularized suspicion before routine stops on major highways near the Mexican border “would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car that would enable it to be identified as a possible carrier of illegal aliens”). Our precedents have settled that, in certain limited circumstances, the Government’s need to discover such latent or hidden conditions, or to prevent their development, is sufficiently compelling to justify the intrusion on privacy entailed by conducting such searches without any measure of individualized suspicion. E. g., ante, at 624. We think the Government’s need to conduct the suspicionless searches required by the Customs program outweighs the privacy interests of employees engaged directly in drug interdiction, and of those who otherwise are required to carry firearms.
The Customs Service is our Nation’s first line of defense against one of the greatest problems affecting the health and welfare of our population. We have adverted before to “the veritable national crisis in law enforcement caused by smuggling of illicit narcotics.” United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U. S. 531, 538 (1985). See also Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 513 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). Our cases also reflect the traffickers’ seemingly inexhaustible repertoire of deceptive practices and elaborate schemes for importing narcotics, e. g., United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, supra, at 538-539; United States v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606, 608-609 (1977). The record in this case confirms that, through the adroit selection of source locations, smuggling routes, and increasingly elaborate methods of concealment, drug traffickers have managed to bring into this country increasingly large quantities of illegal drugs. App. 111. The record also indicates, and it is well known, that drug smugglers do not hesitate to use violence to protect their lucrative trade and avoid apprehension. Id., at 109.
Many of the Service’s employees are often exposed to this criminal element and to the controlled substances it seeks to smuggle into the country. Ibid. Cf. United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, supra, at 543. The physical safety of these employees may be threatened, and many may be tempted not only by bribes from the traffickers with whom they deal, but also by their own access to vast sources of valuable contraband seized and controlled by the Service. The Commissioner indicated below that “Customs [officers have been shot, stabbed, run over, dragged by automobiles, and assaulted with blunt objects while performing their duties.” App. at 109-110. At least nine officers have died in the line of duty since 1974. He also noted that Customs officers have been the targets of bribery by drug smugglers on numerous occasions, and several have been removed from the Service for accepting bribes and for other integrity violations. Id., at 114. See also United States Customs Service, Customs U. S. A., Fiscal Year 1987, p. 31 (reporting internal investigations that resulted in the arrest of 24 employees and 54 civilians); United States Customs Service, Customs U. S. A., Fiscal Year 1986, p. 32 (reporting that 334 criminal and serious integrity investigations were conducted during the fiscal year, resulting in the arrest of 37 employees and 17 civilians); United States Customs Service, Customs U. S. A., Fiscal Year 1985, p. 32 (reporting that 284 criminal and serious integrity investigations were conducted during the 1985 fiscal year, resulting in the arrest of 15 employees and 51 civilians).
It is readily apparent that the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring that front-line interdiction personnel are physically fit, and have unimpeachable integrity and judgment. Indeed, the Government’s interest here is at least as important as its interest in searching travelers entering the country. We have long held that travelers seeking to enter the country may be stopped and required to submit to a routine search without probable cause, or even founded suspicion, “because of national self protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in.” Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154 (1925). See also United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, supra, at 538; United States v. Ramsey, supra, at 617-619. This national interest in self-protection could be irreparably damaged if those charged with safeguarding it were, because of their own drug use, unsympathetic to their mission of interdicting narcotics. A drug user’s indifference to the Service’s basic mission or, even worse, his active complicity with the malefactors, can facilitate importation of sizable drug shipments or block apprehension of dangerous criminals. The public interest demands effective measures to bar drug users from positions directly involving the interdiction of illegal drugs.
The public interest likewise demands effective measures to prevent the promotion of drug users to positions that require the incumbent to carry a firearm, even if the incumbent is not engaged directly in the interdiction of drugs. Customs employees who may use deadly force plainly “discharge duties fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences.” Ante, at 628. We agree with the Government that the public should not bear the risk that employees who may suffer from impaired perception and judgment will be promoted to positions where they may need to employ deadly force. Indeed, ensuring against the creation of this dangerous risk will itself further Fourth Amendment values, as the use of deadly force may violate the Fourth Amendment in certain circumstances. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1, 7-12 (1985).
Against these valid public interests we must weigh the interference with individual liberty that results from requiring these classes of employees to undergo a urine test. The interference with individual privacy that results from the collection of a urine sample for subsequent chemical analysis could be substantial in some circumstances. Ante, at 626. We have recognized, however, that the “operational realities of the workplace” may render entirely reasonable certain work-related intrusions by supervisors and co-workers that might be viewed as unreasonable in other contexts. See O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S., at 717; id., at 732 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). While these operational realities will rarely affect an employee’s expectations of privacy with respect to searches of his person, or of personal effects that the employee may bring to the workplace, id., at 716, 725, it is plain that certain forms of public employment may diminish privacy expectations even with respect to such personal searches. Employees of the United States Mint, for example, should expect to be subject to certain routine personal searches when they leave the workplace every day. Similarly, those who join our military or intelligence services may not only be required to give what in other contexts might be viewed as extraordinary assurances of trustworthiness and probity, but also may expect intrusive inquiries into their physical fitness for those special positions. Cf. Snepp v. United States, 444 U. S. 507, 509, n. 3 (1980); Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 758 (1974); Committee for GI Rights v. Callaway, 171 U. S. App. D. C. 73, 84, 518 F. 2d 466, 477 (1975).
We think Customs employees who are directly involved in the interdiction of illegal drugs or who are required to carry firearms in the line of duty likewise have a diminished expectation of privacy in respect to the intrusions occasioned by a urine test. Unlike most private citizens or government employees in general, employees involved in drug interdiction reasonably should expect effective inquiry into their fitness and probity. Much the same is true of employees who are required to carry firearms. Because successful performance of their duties depends uniquely on their judgment and dexterity, these employees cannot reasonably expect to keep from the Service personal information that bears directly on their fitness. Cf. In re Caruso v. Ward, 72 N. Y. 2d 433, 441, 530 N. E. 2d 850, 854-855 (1988). While reasonable tests designed to elicit this information doubtless infringe some privacy expectations, we do not believe these expectations outweigh the Government’s compelling interests in safety and in the integrity of our borders.
Without disparaging the importance of the governmental interests that support the suspicionless searches of these employees, petitioners nevertheless contend that the Service’s drug-testing program is unreasonable in two particulars. First, petitioners argue that the program is unjustified because it is not based on a belief that testing will reveal any drug use by covered employees. In pressing this argument, petitioners point out that the Service’s testing scheme was not implemented in response to any perceived drug problem among Customs employees, and that the program actually has not led to the discovery of a significant number of drug users. Brief for Petitioners 37, 44; Tr. of Oral Arg. 11-12, 20-21. Counsel for petitioners informed us at oral argument that no more than 5 employees out of 3,600 have tested positive for drugs. Id., at 11. Second, petitioners contend that the Service’s scheme is not a “sufficiently productive mechanism to justify [its] intrusion upon Fourth Amendment interests,” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 658-659 (1979), because illegal drug users can avoid detection with ease by temporary abstinence or by surreptitious adulteration of their urine specimens. Brief for Petitioners 46-47. These contentions are unpersuasive.
Petitioners’ first contention evinces an unduly narrow view of the context in which the Service’s testing program was implemented. Petitioners do not dispute, nor can there be doubt, that drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society today. There is little reason to believe that American workplaces are immune from this pervasive social problem, as is amply illustrated by our decision in Railway Labor Executives. See also Masino v. United States, 589 P. 2d 1048, 1050 (Ct. Cl. 1978) (describing marijuana use by two Customs inspectors). Detecting drug impairment on the part of employees can be a difficult task, especially where, as here, it is not feasible to subject employees and their work product to the kind of day-to-day scrutiny that is the norm in more traditional office environments. Indeed, the almost unique mission of the Service gives the Government a compelling interest in ensuring that many of these covered employees do not use drugs even off duty, for such use creates risks of bribery and blackmail against which the Government is entitled to guard. In light of the extraordinary safety and national security hazards that would attend the promotion of drug users to positions that require the carrying of firearms or the interdiction of controlled substances, the Service’s policy of deterring drug users from seeking such promotions cannot be deemed unreasonable.
The mere circumstance that all but a few of the employees tested are entirely innocent of wrongdoing does not impugn the program’s validity. The same is likely to be true of householders who are required to submit to suspicionless housing code inspections, see Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523 (1967), and of motorists who are stopped at the checkpoints we approved in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976). The Service’s program is designed to prevent the promotion of drug users to sensitive positions as much as it is designed to detect those employees who use drugs. Where, as here, the possible harm against which the Government seeks to guard is substantial, the need to prevent its occurrence furnishes an ample justification for reasonable searches calculated to advance the Government’s goal.
We think petitioners’ second argument — that the Service’s testing program is ineffective because employees may attempt to deceive the test by a brief abstention before the test date, or by adulterating their urine specimens — overstates the case. As the Court of Appeals noted, addicts may be unable to abstain even for a limited period of time, or may be unaware of the “fade-away effect” of certain drugs. 816 F. 2d, at 180. More importantly, the avoidance techniques suggested by petitioners are fraught with uncertainty and risks for those employees who venture to attempt them. A particular employee’s pattern of elimination for a given drug cannot be predicted with perfect accuracy, and, in any event, this information is not likely to be known or available to the employee. Petitioners’ own expert indicated below that the time it takes for particular drugs to become undetectable in urine can vary widely depending on the individual, and may extend for as long as 22 days. App. 66. See also ante, at 631 (noting Court of Appeals’ reliance on certain academic literature that indicates that the testing of urine can discover drug use “ ‘for... weeks after the ingestion of the drug’ ”). Thus, contrary to petitioners’ suggestion, no employee reasonably can expect to deceive the test by the simple expedient of abstaining after the test date is assigned. Nor can he expect attempts at adulteration to succeed, in view of the precautions taken by the sample collector to ensure the integrity of the sample. In all the circumstances, we are persuaded that the program bears a close and substantial relation to the Service’s goal of deterring drug users from seeking promotion to sensitive positions.
In sum, we believe the Government has demonstrated that its compelling interests in safeguarding our borders and the public safety outweigh the privacy expectations of employees who seek to be promoted to positions that directly involve the interdiction of illegal drugs or that require the incumbent to carry a firearm. We hold that the testing of these employees is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
C
We are unable, on the present record, to assess the reasonableness of the Government’s testing program insofar as it covers employees who are required “to handle classified material.” App. 17. We readily agree that the Government has a compelling interest in protecting truly sensitive information from those who, “under compulsion of circumstances or for other reasons,... might compromise [such] information.” Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U. S. 518, 528 (1988). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 267 (1967) (“We have recognized that, while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it does not withdraw from the Government the power to safeguard its vital interests.... The Government can deny access to its secrets to those who would use such information to harm the Nation”). We also agree that employees who seek promotions to positions where they would handle sensitive information can be required to submit to a urine test under the Service’s screening program, especially if the positions covered under this category require background investigations, medical examinations, or other intrusions that may be expected to diminish their expectations of privacy in respect of a urinalysis test. Cf. Department of Navy v. Egan, supra, at 528 (noting that the Executive Branch generally subjects those desiring a security clearance to “a background investigation that varies according to the degree of adverse effect the applicant could have on the national security”).
It is not clear, however, whether the category defined by the Service’s testing directive encompasses only those Customs employees likely to gain access to sensitive information. Employees who are tested under the Service’s scheme include those holding such diverse positions as “Accountant,” “Accounting Technician,” “Animal Caretaker,” “Attorney (All),” “Baggage Clerk,” “Co-op Student (All),” “Electric Equipment Repairer,” “Mail Clerk/Assistant,” and “Messenger.” App. 42-43. We assume these positions were selected for coverage under the Service’s testing program by reason of the incumbent’s access to “classified” information, as it is not clear that they would fall under either of the two categories we have already considered. Yet it is not evident that those occupying these positions are likely to gain access to sensitive information, and this apparent discrepancy raises in our minds the question whether the Service has defined this category of employees more broadly than is necessary to meet the purposes of the Commissioner’s directive.
We cannot resolve this ambiguity on the basis of the record before us, and we think it is appropriate to remand the case to the Court of Appeals for such proceedings as may be necessary to clarify the scope of this category of employees subject to testing. Upon remand the Court of Appeals should examine the criteria used by the Service in determining what materials are classified and in deciding whom to test under this rubric. In assessing the reasonableness of requiring tests of these employees, the court should also consider pertinent information bearing upon the employees’ privacy expectations, as well as the supervision to which these employees are already subject.
Ill
Where the Government requires its employees to produce urine samples to be analyzed for evidence of illegal drug use, the collection and subsequent chemical analysis of such samples are searches that must meet the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Because the testing program adopted by the Customs Service is not designed to serve the ordinary' needs of law enforcement, we have balanced the public interest in the Service’s testing program against the privacy concerns implicated by the tests, without reference to our usual presumption in favor of the procedures specified in the Warrant Clause, to assess whether the tests required by Customs are reasonable.
We hold that the suspicionless testing of employees who apply for promotion to positions directly involving the interdiction of illegal drugs, or to positions that require the incumbent to carry a firearm, is reasonable. The Government’s compelling interests in preventing the promotion of drug users to positions where they might endanger the integrity of our Nation’s borders or the life of the citizenry outweigh the privacy interests of those who seek promotion to these positions, who enjoy a diminished expectation of privacy by virtue of the special, and obvious, physical and ethical demands of those positions. We do not decide whether testing those who apply for promotion to positions where they would handle “classified” information is reasonable because we find the record inadequate for this purpose.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
After this case was decided by.the Court of Appeals, 816 F. 2d 170 (CA5 1987), the United States Department of Health and Human Services, in accordance with recently enacted legislation, Pub. L. 100-71, § 503, 101 Stat. 468-471, promulgated regulations (hereinafter HHS Regulations or HHS Reg.) governing certain federal employee drug-testing programs. 53 Fed. Reg. 11979 (1988). To the extent the HHS Regulations add to, or depart from, the procedures adopted as part of a federal drug-screening program covered by Pub. L. 100-71, the HHS Regulations control. Pub. L. 100-71, § 503(b)(2)(B), 101 Stat. 470. Both parties agree that the Customs Service’s drug-testing program must conform to the HHS Regulations. See Brief for Petitioners 6, n. 8; Brief for Respondent 4-5, and n. 4. We therefore consider the HHS Regulations to the extent they supplement or displace the Commissioner’s original directive. See California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21, 53 (1974); Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U. S. 268, 281-282 (1969).
One respect in which the original Customs directive differs from the now-prevailing regime concerns the extent to which the employee may be required to disclose personal medical information. Under the Service’s original plan, each tested employee was asked to disclose, at the time the urine sample was collected, any medications taken within the last 30 days, and to explain any circumstances under which he may have been in legitimate contact with illegal substances within the last 30 days. Failure to provide this information at this time could result in the agency not considering the effect 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:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, a Labor Department Deputy Commissioner, rejected an employee’s claim against respondent under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq., on the ground that the proofs failed to establish that his disability was related to conditions of his employment. Thereafter petitioner reopened the case pursuant to § 22 of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 922. On the basis of testimony by the employee’s personal physician and a commission-appointed doctor; petitioner concluded, contrary to his initial determination, that the disabling condition had in fact been “materially aggravated and hastened” by the circumstances of employment, and awarded him compensation. The District Court sustained the award but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, one judge dissenting, reversed. 442 F. 2d 508. The Court of. Appeals held that in the absence of changed conditions or new evidence clearly demonstrating mistake in the initial determination, the “statute simply does not confer authority upon the Deputy Commissioner to receive additional but cumulative evidence and change his mind.” 442 F. 2d, at 513.
Neither the wording of the statute nor its legislative history supports this “narrowly technical and impractical construction.” Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Norton, 106 F. 2d 137, 138 (CA3 1939). Section 22 of the Act provides:
“Upon his own initiative, or upon the application of any party in interest, on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact by the deputy commissioner, the deputy commissioner may, at any time prior to one year after the date of the last payment of compensation, whether or not a compensation order has been issued, or at any time prior to one year after the rejection of a claim, review a compensation case in accordance with the procedure prescribed in respect of claims in section 919 of this title, and in accordance with such section issue a new compensation order which may terminate, continue, reinstate, increase, or decrease such compensation, or award compensation. . . .” 33 U. S. C. § 922.
Thus, on its face, the section permits a reopening within one year “because of a mistake in a determination of fact.” There is no limitation to particular factual errors, or to cases involving new evidence or changed circumstances. The Act at one time did authorize reopening only on the “ground of a change in conditions,” 44 Stat. 1437, but was amended in 1934 expressly to “broaden the grounds on which a deputy commissioner can modify an award . . . when changed conditions or a mistake in a determination of fact makes such modification desirable in order to render justice under the act.” S. Rep. No. 588, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 3-4 (1934); H. R. Rep. No. 1244, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1934). The plain import of this amendment was to vest a deputy commissioner with broad discretion to correct mistakes of fact, whether demonstrated by wholly new evidence, cumulative evidence, or merely further reflection on the evidence initially submitted.
Nor does our construction “render meaningless the provision [of §21 of (the Act, 33 U. S. C. §921] that [a compensation] order becomes final unless proceedings for review are brought within thirty days.” Case v. Calbeck, 304 F. 2d 198, 201 (CA5 1962). The review authorized by § 21 is limited to the legal yalidity of the award; a district court may set aside an award only if it is “not in accordance with law.” Section 21 (b), 33 U. S. C. §921 (b). The 30-day limit of §21 is not “rendered meaningless” by setting a different time limit for a redetermination of fact. Moreover, the absence of a provision in § 21 for the judicial review of evidence confirms the need for a broad discretion in the deputy commissioner, to review factual errors in an effort “to render justice under the act.”
The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated cases present challenges to state laws regulating the sale of wine from out-of-state wineries to consumers in Michigan and New York. The details and mechanics of the two regulatory schemes differ, but the object and effect of the laws are the same: to allow in-state wineries to sell wine directly to consumers in that State but to prohibit out-of-state wineries from doing so, or, at the least, to make direct sales impractical from an economic standpoint. It is evident that the object and design of the Michigan and New York statutes is to grant in-state wineries a competitive advantage over wineries located beyond the States’ borders.-
We hold that the laws in both States discriminate against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and that the discrimination is neither authorized nor permitted by the Twenty-first Amendment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which invalidated the Michigan laws; and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld the New York laws.
i — I
Like many other States, Michigan and New York regulate the sale and importation of alcoholic beverages, including wine, through a three-tier distribution system. Separate licenses are required for producers, wholesalers, and retailers. See FTC, Possible Anticompetitive Barriers to E-Commerce: Wine 5-7 (July 2003) (hereinafter FTC Report), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/07/winereport2.pdf (all Internet materials as visited May 11, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). The three-tier scheme is preserved by a complex set of overlapping state and federal regulations. For example, both state and federal laws limit vertical integration between tiers. Id., at 5; 27 U. S. C. §205; see, e. g., Bainbridge v. Turner, 311 F. 3d 1104, 1106 (CA11 2002). We have held previously that States can mandate a three-tier distribution scheme in the exercise of their authority under the Twenty-first Amendment. North Dakota v. United States, 495 U. S. 423, 432 (1990); id., at 447 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). As relevant to today’s cases, though, the three-tier system is, in broad terms and with refinements to be discussed, mandated by Michigan and New York only for sales from out-of-state wineries. In-state wineries, by contrast, can obtain a license for direct sales to consumers. The differential treatment between in-state and out-of-state wineries constitutes explicit discrimination against interstate commerce.
This discrimination substantially limits the direct sale of wine to consumers, an otherwise emerging and significant business. FTC Report 7. From 1994 to 1999, consumer spending on direct wine shipments doubled, reaching $500 million per year, or three percent of all wine sales. Id., at 5. The expansion has been influenced by several related trends. First, the number of small wineries in the United States has significantly increased. By some estimates there are over 3,000 wineries in the country, WineAmerica, The National Association of American Wineries, Wine Facts 2004, http://www.americanwineries.org/newsroom/ winefacts04.htm, more than three times the number 30 years ago, FTC Report 6. At the same time, the wholesale market has consolidated. Between 1984 and 2002, the number of licensed wholesalers dropped from 1,600 to 600. Riekhof & Sykuta, Regulating Wine by Mail, 27 Regulation, No. 3, pp. 30, 31 (Fall 2004), available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/ regulation/regv27n3/v27n3-3.pdf. The increasing winery-to-wholesaler ratio means that many small wineries do not produce enough wine or have sufficient consumer demand for their wine to make it economical for wholesalers to carry their products. FTC Report 6. This has led many small wineries to rely on direct shipping to reach new markets. Technological improvements, in particular the ability of wineries to sell wine over the Internet, have helped make direct shipments an attractive sales channel.
Approximately 26 States allow some direct shipping of wine, with various restrictions. Thirteen of these States have reciprocity laws, which allow direct shipment from wineries outside the State, provided the State of origin affords similar nondiscriminatory treatment. Id., at 7-8. In many parts of the country, however, state laws that prohibit or severely restrict direct shipments deprive consumers of access to the direct market. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), “[s]tate bans on interstate direct shipping represent the single largest regulatory barrier to expanded e-commerce in wine.” Id., at 3.
The wine producers in the cases before us are small wineries that rely on direct consumer sales as an important part of their businesses. Domaine Alfred, one of the plaintiffs in the Michigan suit, is a small winery located in San Luis Obispo, California. It produces 3,000 cases of wine per year. Domaine Alfred has received requests for its wine from Michigan consumers but cannot fill the orders because of the State’s direct-shipment ban. Even if the winery could find a Michigan wholesaler to distribute its wine, the wholesaler’s markup would render shipment through the three-tier system economically infeasible.
Similarly, Juanita Swedenburg and David Lucas, two of the plaintiffs in the New York suit, operate small wineries in Virginia (the Swedenburg Estate Vineyard) and California (the Lucas Winery). Some of their customers are tourists, from other States, who purchase wine while visiting the wineries. If these customers wish to obtain Swedenburg or Lucas wines after they return home, they will be unable to do so if they reside in a State with restrictive direct-shipment laws. For example, Swedenburg and Lucas are unable to fill orders from New York, the Nation’s second-largest wine market, because of the limits that State imposes on direct wine shipments.
A
We first address the background of the suit challenging the Michigan direct-shipment law. Most alcoholic beverages in Michigan are distributed through the State’s three-tier system. Producers or distillers of alcoholic beverages, whether located in state or out of state, generally may sell only to licensed in-state wholesalers. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§436.1109(1), 436.1305, 436.1403, 436.1607(1) (West 2000); Mich. Admin. Code Rules 436.1705 (1990), 436.1719 (2000). Wholesalers, in turn, may sell only to in-state retailers. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§436.1113(7), 436.1607(1) (West 2001). Licensed retailers are the final link in the chain, selling alcoholic beverages to consumers at retail locations and, subject to certain restrictions, through home delivery. §§436.1111(5), 436.1203(2)-(4).
Under Michigan law, wine producers, as a general matter, must distribute their wine through wholesalers. There is, however, an exception for Michigan’s approximately 40 in-state wineries, which are eligible for “wine maker” licenses that allow direct shipment to in-state consumers. §436.1113(9) (West 2001); §§436.1537(2)-(3) (West Supp. 2004); Mich. Admin. Code Rule 436.1011(7)(b) (2003). The cost of the license varies with the size of the winery. For a small winery, the license is $25. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §436.1525(1)(d) (West Supp. 2004). Out-of-state wineries can apply for a $300 “outside seller of wine” license, but this license only allows them to sell to in-state wholesalers. §§436.1109(9) (West 2001), 436.1525(1)(e) (West Supp. 2004); Mich. Admin. Code Rule 436.1719(5) (2000).
Some Michigan residents brought suit against various state officials in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Domaine Alfred, the San Luis Obispo winery, joined in the suit. The plaintiffs contended that Michigan’s direct-shipment laws discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. The trade association Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers intervened as a defendant. Both the State and the wholesalers argued that the ban on direct shipment from out-of-state wineries is a valid exercise of Michigan’s power under § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment.
On cross-motions for summary judgment the District Court sustained the Michigan scheme. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Heald v. Engler, 342 F. 3d 517 (2003). Relying on Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263 (1984), the court rejected the argument that the Twenty-first Amendment immunizes all state liquor laws from the strictures of the Commerce Clause, 342 F. 3d, at 524, and held the Michigan scheme was unconstitutional because the defendants failed to demonstrate the State could not meet its proffered policy objectives through nondiscriminatory means, id., at 527.
B
New York’s licensing scheme is somewhat different. It channels most wine sales through the three-tier system, but it too makes exceptions for in-state wineries. As in Michigan, the result is to allow local wineries to make direct sales to consumers in New York on terms not available to out-of-state wineries. Wineries that produce wine only from New York grapes can apply for a license that allows direct shipment to in-state consumers. N. Y. Alco. Bev. Cont. Law Ann. §76-a(3) (West Supp. 2005) (hereinafter N. Y. ABC Law). These licensees are authorized to deliver the wines of other wineries as well, § 76-a(6)(a), but only if the wine is made from grapes “at least seventy-five percent the volume of which were grown in New York state,” §3(20-a). An out-of-state winery may ship directly to New York consumers only if it becomes a licensed New York winery, which requires the establishment of “a branch factory, office or storeroom within the state of New York.” § 3(37).
Juanita Swedenburg and David Lucas, joined by three of their New York customers, brought suit in the Southern District of New York against the officials responsible for administering New York’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Law seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the State’s limitations on the direct shipment of out-of-state wine violate the Commerce Clause. New York liquor wholesalers and representatives of New York liquor retailers intervened in support of the State.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. 282 F. Supp. 2d 135 (2002). The court first determined that, under established Commerce Clause principles, the New York direct-shipment scheme discriminates against out-of-state winéries. Id., at 146-147. The court then rejected the State’s Twenty-first Amendment argument, finding that the “[defendants have not shown that New York’s ban on the direct shipment of out-of-state wine, and particularly the in-state exceptions to the ban, implicate the State’s core concerns under the Twenty-first Amendment.” Id., at 148.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. 358 F. 3d 223 (2004). The court “recognize[d] that the physical presence requirement could create substantial dormant Commerce Clause problems if this licensing scheme regulated a commodity other than alcohol.” Id., at 238. The court nevertheless sustained the New York statutory scheme because, in the court’s view, “New York’s desire to ensure accountability through presence is aimed at the regulatory interests directly tied to the importation and transportation of alcohol for use in New York,” ibid. As such, the New York direct-shipment laws were “within the ambit of the powers granted to states by the Twenty-first Amendment.” Id., at 239.
C
We consolidated these cases and granted certiorari on the following question: “ ‘Does a State’s regulatory scheme that permits in-state wineries directly to ship alcohol to consumers but restricts the ability of out-of-state wineries to do so violate the dormant Commerce Clause in light of § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment?’ ” 541 U. S. 1062 (2004).
For ease of exposition, we refer to the respondents from the Michigan challenge (Nos. 03-1116 and 03-1120) and the petitioners in the New York challenge (No. 03-1274) collectively as the wineries. We refer to their opposing parties— Michigan, New York, and the wholesalers and retailers— simply as the States.
II
A
Time and again this Court has held that, in all but the narrowest circumstances, state laws violate the Commerce Clause if they mandate “differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.” Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore., 511 U. S. 93, 99 (1994). See also New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U. S. 269, 274 (1988). This rule is essential to the foundations of the Union. The mere fact of nonresidence should not foreclose a producer in one State from access to markets in other States. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 539 (1949). States may not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers or shippers simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses. This mandate “reflect[s] a central concern of the Framers that was an immediate reason for calling the Constitutional Convention: the conviction that in order to succeed, the new Union would have to avoid the tendencies toward economic Balkanization that had plagued relations among the Colonies and later among the States under the Articles of Confederation.” Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322, 325-326 (1979).
The rule prohibiting state discrimination against interstate commerce follows also from the principle that States should not be compelled to negotiate with each other regarding favored or disfavored status for their own citizens. States do not need, and may not attempt, to negotiate with other States regarding their mutual economic interests. Cf. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 10, cl. 3. Rivalries among the States are thus kept to a minimum, and a proliferation of trade zones is prevented. See C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, 511 U. S. 383, 390 (1994) (citing The Federalist No. 22, pp. 143-145 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton); Madison, Vices of the Political System of the United States, in 2 Writings of James Madison 362-363 (G. Hunt ed. 1901)).
Laws of the type at issue in the instant cases contradict these principles. They deprive citizens of their right to have access to the markets of other States on equal terms. The perceived necessity for reciprocal sale privileges risks generating the trade rivalries and animosities, the alliances and exclusivity, that the Constitution and, in particular, the Commerce Clause were designed to avoid. State laws that protect local wineries have led to the enactment of statutes under which some States condition the right of out-of-state wineries to make direct wine sales to in-state consumers on a reciprocal right in the shipping State. California, for example, passed a reciprocity law in 1986, retreating from the State’s previous regime that allowed unfettered direct shipments from out-of-state wineries. Riekhof & Sykuta, 27 Regulation, No. 3, at 30. Prior to 1986, all but three States prohibited direct shipments of wine. The obvious aim of the California statute was to open the interstate direct-shipping market for the State’s many wineries. Ibid. The current patchwork of laws — with some States banning direct shipments altogether, others doing so only for out-of-state wines, and still others requiring reciprocity — is essentially the product of an ongoing, low-level trade war. Allowing States to discriminate against out-of-state wine “invite[s] a multiplication of preferential trade areas destructive of the very purpose of the Commerce Clause.” Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U. S. 349, 356 (1951). See also Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S. 511, 521-523 (1935).
B
The discriminatory character of the Michigan system is obvious. Michigan allows in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers, subject only to a licensing requirement. Out-of-state wineries, whether licensed or not, face a complete ban on direct shipment. The differential treatment requires all out-of-state wine, but not all in-state wine, to pass through an in-state wholesaler and retailer before reaching consumers. These two extra layers of overhead increase the cost of out-of-state wines to Michigan consumers. The cost differential, and in some cases the inability to secure a wholesaler for small shipments, can effectively bar small wineries from the Michigan market.
The New York regulatory scheme differs from Michigan’s in that it does not ban direct shipments altogether. Out-of-state wineries are instead required to establish a distribution operation in New York in order to gain the privilege of direct shipment. N. Y. ABC Law §§3(37), 96 (West Supp. 2005). This, though, is just an indirect way of subjecting out-of-state wineries, but not local ones, to the three-tier system. New York and those allied with its interests defend the scheme by arguing that an out-of-state winery has the same access to the State’s consumers as in-state wineries: All wine must be sold through a licensee fully accountable to New York; it just so happens that in order to become a licensee, a winery must have a physical presence in the State. There is some confusion over the precise steps out-of-state wineries must take to gain access to the New York market, in part because no winery has run the State’s regulatory gauntlet. New York’s argument, in any event, is unconvincing.
The New York scheme grants in-state wineries access to the State’s consumers on preferential terms. The suggestion of a limited exception for direct shipment from out-of-state wineries does nothing to eliminate the discriminatory nature of New York’s regulations. In-state producers, with the applicable licenses, can ship directly to consumers from their wineries. §§76-a(3), 76(4), and 77(2) (West 2000). Out-of-state wineries must open a branch office and warehouse in New York, additional steps that drive up the cost of their wine. §§ 3(37), 96 (West Supp. 2005). See also App. in No. 03-1274, pp. 159-160 (Affidavit of Thomas G. McKeon, General Counsel to the New York State Liquor Authority). For most wineries, the expense of establishing a bricks-and-mortar distribution operation in 1 State, let alone all 50, is prohibitive. It comes as no surprise that not a single out-of-state winery has availed itself of New York’s direct-shipping privilege. We have “viewed with particular suspicion state statutes requiring business operations to be performed in the home State that could more efficiently be performed elsewhere.” Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137, 145 (1970). New York’s in-state presence requirement runs contrary to our admonition that States cannot require an out-of-state firm “to become a resident in order to compete on equal terms.” Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Reily, 373 U. S. 64, 72 (1963). See also Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 (1871).
In addition to its restrictive in-state presence requirement, New York discriminates against out-of-state wineries in other ways. Out-of-state wineries that establish the requisite branch office and warehouse in New York are still ineligible for a “farm winery” license, the license that provides the most direct means of shipping to New York consumers. N. Y. ABC Law §76-a(5) (West Supp. 2005) (“No licensed farm winery shall manufacture or sell any wine not produced exclusively from grapes or other fruits or agricultural products grown or produced in New York state”). Out-of-state wineries may apply only for a commercial winery license. See §§3(37), 76. Unlike farm wineries, however, commercial wineries must obtain a separate certificate from the state liquor authority authorizing direct shipments to consumers, §77(2) (West 2000); and, of course, for out-of-state wineries there is the additional requirement of maintaining a distribution operation in New York. New York law also allows in-state wineries without direct-shipping licenses to distribute their wine through other wineries that have the applicable licenses. §76(5) (West Supp. 2005). This is another privilege not afforded out-of-state wineries.
We have no difficulty concluding that New York, like Michigan, discriminates against interstate commerce through its direct-shipping laws.
Ill
State laws that discriminate against interstate commerce face “a virtually per se rule of invalidity.” Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617, 624 (1978). The Michigan and New York laws by their own terms violate this proscription. The two States, however, contend their statutes are saved by § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment, which provides:
“The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”
The States’ position is inconsistent with our precedents and with the Twenty-first Amendment’s history. Section 2 does not allow States to regulate the direct shipment of wine on terms 'that discriminate in favor of in-state producers.
A
Before 1919, the temperance movement fought to curb the sale of alcoholic beverages one State at a time. The movement made progress, and many States passed laws restricting or prohibiting the sale of alcohol. This Court upheld state laws banning the production and sale of alcoholic beverages, Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 (1887), but was less solicitous of laws aimed at imports. In a series of cases before ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment the Court, relying on the Commerce Clause, invalidated a number of state liquor regulations.
These cases advanced two distinct principles. First, the Court held that the Commerce Clause prevented States from discriminating against imported liquor. Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58 (1897); Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446 (1886); Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123 (1880). In Walling, for example, the Court invalidated a Michigan tax that discriminated against liquor imports by exempting sales of local products. The Court held that States were not free to pass laws burdening only out-of-state products:
“A discriminating tax imposed by a State operating to the disadvantage of the products of other States when introduced into the first mentioned State, is, in effect, a regulation in restraint of commerce among the States, and as such is a usurpation of the power conferred by the Constitution upon the Congress of the United States.” 116 U. S., at 455.
Second, the Court held that the Commerce Clause prevented States from passing facially neutral laws that placed an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412 (1898); Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., 170 U. S. 438 (1898); Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100 (1890); Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 125 U. S. 465 (1888). For example, in Bowman, the Court struck down an Iowa statute that required all liquor importers to have a permit. Bowman and its progeny rested in part on the since-rejected original-package doctrine. Under this doctrine goods shipped in interstate commerce were immune from state regulation while in their original package. As the Court explained in Vance:
“[T]he power to ship merchandise from one State into another carries with it, as an incident, the right in the receiver of the goods to sell them in the original packages, any state regulation to the contrary notwithstanding; that is to say, that the goods received by Interstate Commerce remain under the shelter of the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution, until by a sale in the original package they have been commingled with the general mass of property in the State.” 170 U. S., at 444-445.
Bowman reserved the question whether a State could ban the sale of imported liquor altogether. 125 U. S., at 499-500. Iowa responded to Bowman by doing just that but was thwarted once again. In Leisy, supra, the Court held that Iowa could not ban the sale of imported liquor in its original package.
Leisy left the States in a bind. They could ban the production of domestic liquor, Mugler, supra, but these laws were ineffective because out-of-state liquor was immune from any state regulation as long as it remained in its original package, Leisy, supra. To resolve the matter, Congress passed the Wilson Act (so named for Senator Wilson of Iowa), which empowered the States to regulate imported liquor on the same terms as domestic liquor:
“That all fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any State or Territory or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale or storage therein, shall upon arrival in such State or Territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise.” Ch. 728, 26 Stat. 313 (codified at 27 U.S. C. §121).
By its own terms, the Wilson Act did not allow States to discriminate against out-of-state liquor; rather, it allowed States to regulate imported liquor only “to the same extent and in the same manner” as domestic liquor.
The Court confirmed this interpretation in Scott, supra. Scott involved a constitutional challenge to South Carolina’s dispensary law, 1895 S. C. Acts p. 721, which required that all liquor sales be channeled through the state liquor commissioner. 165 U. S., at 92. The statute discriminated against out-of-state manufacturers in two primary ways. First, § 15 required the commissioner to “purchase his supplies from the brewers and distillers in this State when their product reaches the standard required by this Act: Provided, Such supplies can be purchased as cheaply from such brewers and distillers in this State as elsewhere.” 1895 S. C. Acts p. 732. Second, § 23 of the statute limited the State’s markup on locally produced wines to a 10-percent profit but provided “no such limitation of charge in the case of imported wines.” 165 U. S., at 93. Based on these discriminatory provisions, the Court rejected the argument that the South Carolina dispensary law was authorized by the Wilson Act. Id., at 100. It explained that the Wilson Act was “not intended to confer upon any State the power to discriminate injuriously against the products of other States in articles whose manufacture and use are not forbidden, and which are therefore the subjects of legitimate commerce.” Ibid. To the contrary, the Court said, the Wilson Act mandated “equality or uniformity of treatment under state laws,” ibid., and did not allow South Carolina to provide “an unjust preference” to its products “as against similar products of the other States,” id., at 101. The dissent also understood the validity of the dispensary law to turn in large part on §§15 and 23, but argued that even if these provisions were discriminatory the correct remedy was to sever them from the rest of the Act. Id., at 104-106 (opinion of Brown, J.).
Although the Wilson Act increased the States’ authority to police liquor imports, it did not solve all their problems. In Vance and Rhodes — two cases decided soon after Scott— the Court made clear that the Wilson Act did not authorize States to prohibit direct shipments for personal use. In Vance, the Court characterized Scott as embodying two distinct holdings: First, the South Carolina dispensary law “amount[ed] to an unjust discrimination against liquors, the products of other States.” 170 U. S., at 442. This aspect of the Scott holding, which confirmed the Wilson Act’s nondiscrimination principle, was based “on particular provisions of the law by which the discrimination was brought about.” 170 U. S., at 442. Second, “in so far as the law then in question forbade the sending... of intoxicating liquors for the use of the person to whom it was shipped, the statute was repugnant to [the Commerce Clause].” Ibid. (citing Scott, 165 U. S. 58). See also 170 U. S., at 443 (distinguishing between the provisions at issue in Scott “which were held to operate a discrimination” and those which barred direct shipment for personal use).
This second holding, that consumers had the right to receive alcoholic beverages shipped in interstate commerce for personal use, was only implicit in Scott. 165 U. S., at 78, 99-100. The Court expanded on this point, however, not only in Vance but again in Rhodes. Rhodes construed the Wilson Act narrowly to avoid interference with this right. The Act, the Court said, authorized States to regulate only the resale of imported liquor, not direct shipment to consumers for personal use. 170 U. S., at 421. Without a clear indication from Congress that it intended to allow States to ban such shipments, the Rhodes Court read the words “upon arrival” in the Wilson Act as authorizing “the power of the State to attach to an interstate commerce shipment,” only after its arrival at the point of destination and delivery there to the consignee.” Id., at 426. See also id., at 424; Bridenbaugh v. Freeman-Wilson, 227 F. 3d 848, 852 (CA7 2000). The Court interpreted the Wilson Act to overturn Leisy but leave Bowman intact. Rhodes, supra, at 423-424. The right to regulate did not attach until the liquor was in the hands of the customer. As a result, the mail-order liquor trade continued to thrive. Rogers, Interstate Commerce in Intoxicating Liquors Before the Webb-Kenyon Act, 4 Va. L. Rev. 353, 364-365 (1917).
After considering a series of bills in response to the Court’s reading of the Wilson Act, Congress responded to the direct-shipment loophole in 1913 by enacting the Webb-Kenyon Act, 37 Stat. 699, 27 U. S. C. § 122. See Rogers, supra, at 363-370. The Act, entitled “An Act Divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases,” provides:
“That the shipment or transportation... of any spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor of any kind, from one State... into any other State... which said spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State... is hereby prohibited.” 37 Stat., at 699-700.
The constitutionality of the Webb-Kenyon Act itself was in doubt. Vance and Rhodes implied that any law authorizing the States to regulate direct shipments for personal use would be an unlawful delegation of Congress’ Commerce Clause powers. Indeed, President Taft, acting on the advice of Attorney General Wickersham, vetoed the Act for this specific reason. S. Rep. No. 103, 63d Cong., 1st Sess., 3-6 (1913); 30 Op. Atty. Gen. 88 (1913). Congress overrode the veto and in Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland R. Co., 242 U. S. 311 (1917), a divided Court upheld the Webb-Kenyon Act against a constitutional challenge.
The Court construed the Act to close the direct-shipment gap left open by the Wilson Act. States were now empowered to forbid shipments of alcohol to consumers for personal use, provided that the States treated in-state and out-of-state liquor on the same terms. Id., at 321-322 (noting that the West Virginia law at issue in Clark Distilling “forbade the shipment into or transportation of liquor in the State whether from inside or out”). The Court understood that the Webb-Kenyon Act “was enacted simply to extend that which was done by the Wilson Act.” Id., at 324. The Act’s purpose “was to prevent the immunity characteristic of interstate commerce from being used to permit the receipt of liquor through such commerce in States contrary to their laws, and thus in effect afford a means by subterfuge and indirection to set such laws at naught.” Ibid. The Court thus recognized that the Act was an attempt to eliminate the regulatory advantage, i. e., its immunity characteristic, afforded imported liquor under Bowman and Rhodes.
Michigan and New York now argue the Webb-Kenyon Act went even further and removed any barrier to discriminatory state liquor regulations. We do not agree. First, this reading of the Webb-Kenyon Act conflicts with that given the statute in Clark Distilling. Clark Distilling recognized that the Webb-Kenyon Act extended the Wilson Act to allow the States to intercept liquor shipments before those shipments reached the consignee. The States’ contention that the Webb-Kenyon Act also reversed the Wilson Act’s prohibition on discriminatory treatment of out-of-state liquors cannot be reconciled with Clark Distilling’s description of the Webb-Kenyon Act’s purpose — “simply to extend that which was done by the Wilson Act.” 242 U. S., at 324. See also McCormick & Co. v. Brown, 286 U. S. 131, 140-141 (1932).
The statute’s text does not compel a different result. The Webb-Kenyon Act readily can be construed as forbidding “shipment or transportation” only where it runs afoul of the State’s generally applicable laws governing receipt, possession, sale, or use. Cf. id., at 141 (noting that the Act authorized enforcement of “valid” state laws). At the very least, the Webb-Kenyon Act expresses no clear congressional intent to depart from the principle, unexceptional at the time the Act was passed and still applicable today, Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons, 539 U. S. 59, 66 (2003), that discrimination against out-of-state goods is disfavored. Cf. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of Cal., 451 U. S. 648, 652-
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits as to whether intrafamily, interest-free demand loans result in taxable gifts of the value of the use of the money lent.
I
A
Paul and Esther Dickman were husband and wife; Lyle Dickman was their son. Paul, Esther, Lyle, and Lyle’s wife and children were the owners of Artesian Farm, Inc. (Arte-sian), a closely held Florida corporation. Between 1971 and 1976, Paul and Esther loaned substantial sums to Lyle and Artesian. Over this 5-year interval, the outstanding balances for the loans from Paul to Lyle varied from $144,715 to $342,915; with regard to Paul’s loans to Artesian, the outstanding balances ranged from $207,875 to $669,733. During the same period, Esther loaned $226,130 to Lyle and $68,651 to Artesian. With two exceptions, all the loans were evidenced by demand notes bearing no interest.
Paul Dickman died in 1976, leaving a gross estate for federal estate tax purposes of $3,464,011. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue audited Paul Dickman’s estate and determined that the loans to Lyle and Artesian resulted in taxable gifts to the extent of the value of the use of the loaned funds. The Commissioner then issued statutory notices of gift tax deficiency both to Paul Dickman’s estate and to Esther Dickman.
Esther Dickman and the estate, petitioners here, sought redetermination of the deficiencies in the Tax Court. Reaffirming its earlier decision in Crown v. Commissioner, 67 T. C. 1060 (1977), aff’d, 685 F. 2d 234 (CA7 1978), the Tax Court concluded that intrafamily, interest-free demand loans do not result in taxable gifts. 41 TCM 620, 623 (1980), ¶80,575 P-H Memo TC, at 2428. Because the Tax Court determined that all the loans to Lyle and Artesian were made payable on demand, it held that the loans were not subject to the federal gift tax. Id., at 624, ¶80,575 P-H Memo TC, at 2428.
B
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that gratuitous interest-free demand loans give rise to gift tax liability. 690 F. 2d 812, 819 (1982). Reviewing the language and history of the gift tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Code), 26 U. S, C. §2501 et seq., the Court of Appeals concluded that Congress intended the gift tax to have the broadest and most comprehensive coverage possible. The court reasoned that the making of an interest-free demand loan constitutes a “transfer of property by gift” within the meaning of 26 U. S. C. § 2501(a)(1), and accordingly is subject to the gift tax provisions of the Code. In so holding, the Court of Appeals squarely rejected the contrary position adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Crown v. Commissioner, 585 F. 2d 234 (1978). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 459 U. S. 1199 (1983); we affirm.
II
A
The statutory language of the federal gift tax provisions purports to reach any gratuitous transfer of any interest in property. Section 2501(a)(1) of the Code imposes a tax upon “the transfer of property by gif t. ” Section 2511 (a) highlights the broad sweep of the tax imposed by §2501, providing in pertinent part:
“Subject to the limitations contained in this chapter, the tax imposed by section 2501 shall apply whether the transfer is in trust or otherwise, whether the gift is direct or indirect, and whether the property is real or personal, tangible or intangible . . .
The language of these statutes is clear and admits of but one reasonable interpretation: transfers of property by gift, by whatever means effected, are subject to the federal gift tax.
The Committee Reports accompanying the Revenue Act of 1932, ch. 209, 47 Stat. 169, which established the present scheme of federal gift taxation, make plain that Congress intended the gift tax statute to reach all gratuitous transfers of any valuable interest in property. Among other things, these Reports state:
“The terms ‘property,’ ‘transfer,’ ‘gift,’ and ‘indirectly’ are used in the broadest and most comprehensive sense; the term ‘property’ reaching every species of right or interest protected by law and having an exchangeable value.
“The words ‘transfer ... by gift’ and ‘whether . . . direct or indirect’ are designed to cover and comprehend all transactions . . . whereby, and to the extent. . . that, property or a property right is donatively passed to or conferred upon another, regardless of the means or the device employed in its accomplishment.” H. R. Rep. No. 708, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 27-28 (1932); S. Rep. No. 665, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 39 (1932).
The plain language of the statute reflects this legislative history; the gift tax was designed to encompass all transfers of property and property rights having significant value.
On several prior occasions, this Court has acknowledged the expansive sweep of the gift tax provisions. In Commissioner v. Wemyss, 324 U. S. 303, 306 (1945), the Court explained that
“Congress intended to use the term ‘gifts’ in its broadest and most comprehensive sense ... [in order] to hit all the protean arrangements which the wit of man can devise that are not business transactions within the meaning of ordinary speech.”
The Court has also noted that the language of the gift tax statute “is broad enough to include property, however conceptual or contingent,” Smith v. Shaughnessy, 318 U. S. 176, 180 (1943), so as “to reach every kind and type of transfer by gift,” Robinette v. Helvering, 318 U. S. 184, 187 (1943). Thus, the decisions of this Court reinforce the view that the gift tax should be applied broadly to effectuate the clear intent of Congress.
B
In asserting that interest-free demand loans give rise to taxable gifts, the Commissioner does not seek to impose the gift tax upon the principal amount of the loan, but only upon the reasonable value of the use of the money lent. The taxable gift that assertedly results from an interest-free demand loan is the value of receiving and using the money without incurring a corresponding obligation to pay interest along with the loan’s repayment. Is such a gratuitous transfer of the right to use money a “transfer of property” within the intendment of § 2501(a)(1)?
We have little difficulty accepting the theory that the use of valuable property — in this case money — is itself a legally protectible property interest. Of the aggregate rights associated with any property interest, the right of use of property is perhaps of the highest order. One court put it succinctly:
“ ‘Property’ is more than just the physical thing — the land, the bricks, the mortar — it is also the sum of all the rights and powers incident to ownership of the physical thing. It is the tangible and the intangible. Property is composed of constituent elements and of these elements the right to use the physical thing to the exclusion of others is the most essential and beneficial. Without this right all other elements would be of little value . . . .” Passailaigue v. United States, 224 F. Supp. 682, 686 (MD Ga. 1963) (emphasis in original).
What was transferred here was the use of a substantial amount of cash for an indefinite period of time. An analogous interest in real property, the use under a tenancy at will, has long been recognized as a property right. E. g., Restatement (Second) of Property § 1.6 (1977); 3 G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modem Law of Real Property §1020 (J. Grimes ed. 1980). For example, a parent who grants to a child the rent-free, indefinite use of commercial property having a reasonable rental value of $8,000 a month has clearly transferred a valuable property right. The transfer of $100,000 in cash, interest-free and repayable on demand, is similarly a grant of the use of valuable property. Its uncertain tenure may reduce its value, but it does not undermine its status as property. In either instance, when the property owner transfers to another the right to use the object, an identifiable property interest has clearly changed hands.
The right to the use of $100,000 without charge is a valuable interest in the money lent, as much so as the rent-free use of property consisting of land and buildings. In either case, there is a measurable economic value associated with the use of the property transferred. The value of the use of money is found in what it can produce; the measure of that value is interest — “rent” for the use of the funds. We can assume that an interest-free loan for a fixed period, especially for a prolonged period, may have greater value than such a loan made payable on demand, but it would defy common human experience to say that an intrafamily loan payable on demand is not subject to accommodation; its value may be reduced by virtue of its demand status, but that value is surely not eliminated.
This Court has noted in another context that the making of an interest-free loan results in the transfer of a valuable economic right:
“It is virtually self-evident that extending interest-free credit for a period of time is equivalent to giving a discount equal to the value of the use of the purchase price for that period of time.” Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc., 446 U. S. 643, 648 (1980) (per curiam).
Against this background, the gift tax statutes clearly encompass within their broad sweep the gratuitous transfer of the use of money. Just as a tenancy at will in real property is an estate or interest in land, so also is the right to use money a cognizable interest in personal property. The right to use money is plainly a valuable right, readily measurable by reference to current interest rates; the vast banking industry is positive evidence of this reality. Accordingly, we conclude that the interest-free loan of funds is a “transfer of property by gift” within the contemplation of the federal gift tax statutes.
C
Our holding that an interest-free demand loan results in a taxable gift of the use of the transferred funds is fully consistent with one of the major purposes of the federal gift tax statute: protection of the estate tax and the income tax. The legislative history of the gift tax provisions reflects that Congress enacted a tax on gifts to supplement existing estate and income tax laws. H. R. Rep. No. 708, at 28; S. Rep. No. 665, at 40; see also 65 Cong. Rec. 3119-3120, 8095-8096 (1924); Harriss, Legislative History of Federal Gift Taxation, 18 Taxes 531, 536 (1940). Failure to impose the gift tax on interest-free loans would seriously undermine this estate and income tax protection goal.
A substantial no-interest loan from parent to child creates significant tax benefits for the lender quite apart from the economic advantages to the borrower. This is especially so when an individual in a high income tax bracket transfers income-producing property to an individual in a lower income tax bracket, thereby reducing the taxable income of the high-bracket taxpayer at the expense, ultimately, of all other taxpayers and the Government. Subjecting interest-free loans to gift taxation minimizes the potential loss to the federal fisc generated by the use of such loans as an income tax avoidance mechanism for the transferor. Gift taxation of interest-free loans also effectuates Congress’ desire to supplement the estate tax provisions. A gratuitous transfer of income-producing property may enable the transferor to avoid the future estate tax liability that would result if the earnings generated by the property — rent, interest, or dividends — became a part of the transferor’s estate. Imposing the gift tax upon interest-free loans bolsters the estate tax by preventing the diminution of the transferor’s estate in this fashion.
Ill
Petitioners contend that administrative and equitable considerations require a holding that no gift tax consequences result from the making of interest-free demand loans. In support of this position, petitioners advance several policy arguments; none withstands studied analysis.
A
Petitioners first advance an argument accepted by the Tax Court in Crown v. Commissioner:
“[O]ur income tax system does not recognize unrealized earnings or accumulations of wealth and no taxpayer is under any obligation to continuously invest his money for a profit. The opportunity cost of either letting one’s money remain idle or suffering a loss from an unwise investment is not taxable merely because a profit could have been made from a wise investment.” 67 T. C., at 1063-1064.
Thus, petitioners argue, an interest-free loan should not be made subject to the gift tax simply because of the possibility that the money lent might have enhanced the transferor’s taxable income or gross estate had the loan never been made.
This contention misses the mark. It is certainly true that no law requires an individual to invest his property in an income-producing fashion, just as no law demands that a transferor charge interest or rent for the use of money or other property. An individual may, without incurring the gift tax, squander money, conceal it under a mattress, or otherwise waste its use value by failing to invest it. Such acts of consumption have nothing to do with lending money at no interest. The gift tax is an excise tax on transfers of property; allowing dollars to lie idle involves no transfer. If the taxpayer chooses not to waste the use value of money, however, but instead transfers the use to someone else, a taxable event has occurred. That the transferor himself could have consumed or wasted the use value of the money without incurring the gift tax does not change this result. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, a holding in favor of the taxability of interest-free loans does not impose upon the transferor a duty profitably to invest; rather, it merely recognizes that certain tax consequences inevitably flow from a decision to make a “transfer of property by gift.” 26 U. S. C. § 2501(a)(1).
B
Petitioners next attack the breadth of the Commissioner’s view that interest-free demand loans give rise to taxable gifts. Carried to its logical extreme, petitioners argue, the Commissioner’s rationale would elevate to the status of taxable gifts such commonplace transactions as a loan of the proverbial cup of sugar to a neighbor or a loan of lunch money to a colleague. Petitioners urge that such a result is an untenable intrusion by the Government into cherished zones of privacy, particularly where intrafamily transactions are involved.
Our laws require parents to provide their minor offspring with the necessities and conveniences of life; questions under the tax law often arise, however, when parents provide more than the necessities, and in quantities significant enough to attract the attention of the taxing authorities. Generally, the legal obligation of support terminates when the offspring reach majority. Nonetheless, it is not uncommon for parents to provide their adult children with such things as the use of cars or vacation cottages, simply on the basis of the family relationship. We assume that the focus of the Internal Revenue Service is not on such traditional familial matters. When the Government levies a gift tax on routine neighborly or familial gifts, there will be time enough to deal with such a case.
Moreover, the tax law provides liberally for gifts to both family members and others; within the limits of the prescribed statutory exemptions, even substantial gifts may be entirely tax free. First, under § 2503(e) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 2503(e) (1982 ed.), amounts paid on behalf of an individual for tuition at a qualified educational institution or for medical care are not considered “transfer^] of property by gift” for purposes of the gift tax statutes. More significantly, § 2503(b) of the Code provides an annual exclusion from the computation of taxable gifts of $10,000 per year, per donee; this provision allows a taxpayer to give up to $10,000 annually to each of any number of persons, without incurring any gift tax liability. The “split gift” provision of Code § 2513(a), which effectively enables a husband and wife to give each object of their bounty $20,000 per year without liability for gift tax, further enhances the ability to transfer significant amounts of money and property free of gift tax consequences. Finally, should a taxpayer make gifts during one year that exceed the § 2503(b) annual gift tax exclusion, no gift tax liability will result until the unified credit of Code §2505 has been exhausted. These generous exclusions, exceptions, and credits clearly absorb the sorts of de minimis gifts petitioners envision and render illusory the administrative problems that petitioners perceive in their “parade of horribles.”
C
Finally, petitioners urge that the Commissioner should not be allowed to assert the gift taxability of interest-free demand loans because such a position represents a departure from prior Internal Revenue Service practice. This contention rests on the fact that, prior to 1966, the Commissioner had not construed the gift tax statutes and regulations to authorize the levying of a gift tax on the value of the use of money or property. See Crown v. Commissioner, 585 F. 2d, at 241; Johnson v. United States, 254 F. Supp. 73 (ND Tex. 1966). From this they argue that it is manifestly unfair to permit the Commissioner to impose the gift tax on the transactions challenged here.
Even accepting the notion that the Commissioner’s present position represents a departure from prior administrative practice, which is by no means certain, it is well established that the Commissioner may change an earlier interpretation of the law, even if such a change is made retroactive in effect. E. g., Dixon v. United States, 381 U. S. 68, 72-75 (1965); Automobile Club of Michigan v. Commissioner, 353 U. S. 180, 183-184 (1957). This rule applies even though a taxpayer may have relied to his detriment upon the Commissioner’s prior position. Dixon v. United States, supra, at 73. The Commissioner is under no duty to assert a particular position as soon as the statute authorizes such an interpretation. See also Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U. S. 574 (1983). Accordingly, petitioners’ “taxpayer reliance” argument is unavailing.
I — < <J
As we have noted, supra, at 341-342, Congress has provided generous exclusions and credits designed to reduce the gift tax liability of the great majority of taxpayers. Congress clearly has the power to provide a similar exclusion for the gifts that result from interest-free demand loans. Any change in the gift tax consequences of such loans, however, is a legislative responsibility, not a judicial one. Until such a change occurs, we are bound to effectuate Congress’ intent to protect the estate and income tax systems with a broad and comprehensive tax upon all “transferís] of property by gift.” Cf. Diedrich v. Commissioner, 457 U. S. 191, 199 (1982).
We hold, therefore, that the interest-free demand loans shown by this record resulted in taxable gifts of the reasonable value of the use of the money lent. Accordingly, the judgment of the United States. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is
Affirmed.
One exception was a loan made to Lyle on “open account” and payable on demand; the parties have agreed that the gift tax consequences of this “open account” loan are identical to those of the loans evidenced by the demand notes. 41 TCM 620, 623, n. 4 (1980), ¶80,575 P-H Memo TC, at 2427, n. 4. The other exception was a loan made to Artesian and memorialized by a no-interest note having a term of 10 years, the characterization of which has been a matter of dispute. Although the Tax Court held that this loan to Artesian was in substance a demand loan, id., at 624, ¶80,575 P-H Memo TC, at 2428, the Court of Appeals declined to reach the issue, suggesting that the Tax Court consider the valuation consequences of the loan’s characterization on remand. 690 F. 2d 812, 814, n. 3 (CA11 1982). For present purposes, we shall refer to all the loans from Paul and Esther Dickman to Lyle and Artesian as demand loans.
In valuing the gifts, the Commissioner multiplied the loan balances outstanding at the end of each taxable quarter by interest rates ranging from six percent to nine percent per annum. These interest rates were taken from § 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 6621, made applicable by Code § 6601 to underpayments of tax.
The Commissioner asserted a $42,212.91 deficiency against Paul Dick-man’s estate and a $41,109.78 deficiency against Esther Dickman.
The comprehensive scope of the gift tax, reflected by its statutory language and legislative history, is analogous to that of § 61 of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 61, which defines gross income as “all income from whatever source derived.” Section 61 has long been interpreted to include all forms of income except those specifically excluded from its reach. See, e. g., Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U. S. 426 (1955). Similarly, the gift tax applies to any “transfer of property by gift,” Code § 2501(a)(1), “[s]ubjeet to the limitations contained in this chapter,” Code § 2511(a). Accordingly, absent an express exclusion from its provisions, any transfer meeting the statutory requirements must be held subject to the gift tax.
The Commissioner’s tax treatment of interest-free demand loans may perhaps be best understood as a two-step approach to such transactions. Under this theory, such a loan has two basic economic components: an arm’s-length loan from the lender to the borrower, on which the borrower pays the lender a fair rate of interest, followed by a gift from the lender to the borrower in the amount of that interest. See Crown v. Commissioner, 585 F. 2d 234, 240 (CA7 1978).
See also Barker v. Publishers’ Paper Co., 78 N. H. 571, 573, 103 A. 757, 758 (1918) (“In its final analysis, the property in any thing consists in the use”); 1 G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property § 5, p. 31 (J. Grimes ed. 1980) (“The use of a given object is the most essential and beneficial quality or attribute of property”).
Petitioners argue that no gift tax consequences should attach to interest-free demand loans because no “transfer” of property occurs at the time the loan is made. Petitioners urge that the term “transfer” “connotes a discrete, affirmative act whereby a person conveys something to another person, not a continuous series of minute failures to require return of something loaned.” Brief for Petitioners 22. We decline to adopt that construction of the statute.
In order to make a taxable gift, a transferor must relinquish dominion and control over the transferred property. Treas. Reg. § 25.2511 — 2(b), 26 CFR § 25.2511-2(b) (1983). At the moment an interest-free demand loan is made, the transferor has not given up all dominion and control; he could terminate the transferee’s use of the funds by calling the loan. As time passes without a demand for repayment, however, the transferor allows the use of the principal to pass to the transferee, and the gift becomes complete. See ibid.; Rev. Rul. 69-347, 1969-1 Cum. Bull. 227; Rev. Rul. 69-346, 1969-1 Cum. Bull. 227. As the Court of Appeals realized, 690 F. 2d, at 819, the fact that the transferor’s dominion and control over the use of the principal are relinquished over time will become especially relevant in connection with the valuation of the gifts that result from such loans; it does not, however, alter the fact that the lender has made a gratuitous transfer of property subject to the federal gift tax.
During the taxable periods involved in this case, Code § 2503(b) provided an annual exclusion of $3,000 per year, per donee. Section 441(a) of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 319, amended § 2503(b) by raising the annual exclusion to $10,000 for transfers made after December 31, 1981.
Under Code § 2513(a), 26 U. S. C. § 2513(a), a husband and wife may elect to treat a gift in fact made by one spouse as having been made one-half by each spouse. Simply put, the net effect of this “gift-splitting” provision is to double the gift tax exclusions and exemptions applicable to each gift by the donor. In some states, of course, community property laws achieve the same “gift-splitting” result. See generally C. Lowndes, R. Kramer, & J. McCord, Federal Estate and Gift Taxes §35.1 (3d ed. 1974).
Under the gift tax system in effect during the taxable periods involved in this case, former Code § 2521 provided a lifetime gift tax exemption of $30,000 for each taxpayer. Section 2001(b)(3) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1849, replaced the lifetime exemption with a unified credit. As modified by the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, supra, the unified credit provided by Code § 2505 is scheduled to increase each year until 1987; at that time, the credit will total $192,800, the equivalent of a lifetime exemption of $600,000 per taxpayer. See Code § 2505(b), 26 U. S. C. § 2505(b) (1982 ed.).
The Treasury Regulations implementing the gift tax provisions have always reflected the broad scope of the statutory language. See Treas. Regs. 79, Art. 2 (1933); Treas. Regs. 79, Art. 2 (1936); Treas. Regs. 108, § 86.2(a) (1943). The regulation presently in force is virtually identical to those in effect during the preceding five decades; it provides:
“The gift tax also applies to gifts indirectly made. Thus, all transactions whereby property or property rights or interests are gratuitously passed or conferred upon another, regardless of the means or device employed, constitute gifts subject to tax.” Treas. Reg. § 25.2511 — 1(c), 26 CFR § 25.2511-l(c) (1983).
The longstanding interpretation of the statute embodied in these regulations indicates that the Commissioner’s allegedly novel assertion in 1966 regarding the gift taxability of interest-free demand loans was not without a reasonable and well-established foundation.
Indeed, the explanation for the dearth of pre-1966 cases presenting this precise issue is probably economic; the low interest rates that prevailed until recent years diminished the attractiveness of the interest-free demand loan as a tax-planning device and reduced the likelihood that the value of such loans would exceed the annual gift tax exclusion.
Petitioners’ detrimental reliance argument must fail for an additional reason. The interest-free demand loans challenged by the Commissioner in this case were made between 1971 and 1976. The Commissioner first litigated the question of the gift taxability of such loans in Johnson v. United States, 254 F. Supp. 73 (ND Tex. 1966). Six years later, in Rev. Rui. 78-61, 1973-1 Cum. Bull. 408, the Commissioner formally announced the position that interest-free demand loans give rise to taxable gifts. Because approximately half the loans in this case were made after the Commissioner had issued Rev. Rui. 73-61, petitioners are hardly in a position to argue that they relied to their detriment on a different interpretation of the gift tax statute.
In determining the value of the gifts made by Paul and Esther Dickman to Lyle Dickman and Artesian, the Commissioner applied to the loan balances outstanding during each taxable quarter certain interest rates derived from § 6621 of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 6621. See n. 2, supra. The Court of Appeals declined to address the question, but remanded to the Tax Court for consideration of the method by which the gifts associated with interest-free demand loans should be valued. 690 F. 2d, at 820, and n. 11. The valuation issue is therefore not presented on the record before us. We note, however, that to support a gift tax on the transfer of the use of $100,000 for one year, the Commissioner need not establish that the funds lent did in fact produce a particular amount of revenue; it is sufficient for the Commissioner to establish that a certain yield could readily be secured and that the reasonable value of the use of the funds can be reliably ascertained.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967), we gave a negative answer to this question:
“May a State appellate court refuse to provide counsel to brief and argue an indigent criminal defendant’s first appeal as of right on the basis of a conclusory statement by the appointed attorney on appeal that the case has no merit and that he will file no brief?” Brief for Petitioner in Anders v. California, O. T. 1966, No. 98, p. 2.
The question presented by this case is remarkably similar and therefore requires a similar answer.
I
Petitioner is indigent. After a trial in the Montgomery County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, he and two codefendants were found guilty of several serious crimes. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 to 28 years. On January 8, 1985, new counsel was appointed to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed a timely notice of appeal.
On June 2, 1986, petitioner’s appellate counsel filed with the Montgomery County, Ohio, Court of Appeals a document captioned “Certification of Meritless Appeal and Motion.” Excluding this caption and the certificate evidencing its service on the prosecutor’s office and petitioner, the document in its entirety read as follows:
“Appellant’s attorney respectfully certifies to the Court that he has carefully reviewed the within record on appeal, that he has found no errors requiring reversal, modification and/or vacation of appellant’s jury trial convictions and/or the trial court’s sentence in Case No. 84-CR-1056, that he has found no errors requiring reversal, modification and/or vacation of appellant’s jury trial convictions and/or the trial court’s sentence in Case No. 84-CR-1401, and that he will not file a meritless appeal in this matter.
“MOTION
“Appellant’s attorney respectfully requests a Journal Entry permitting him to withdraw as appellant’s appellate attorney of record in this appeal thereby relieving appellant’s attorney of any further responsibility to prosecute this appeal with the attorney/client relationship terminated effective on the date file-stamped on this Motion.” App. 35-36.
A week later, the Court of Appeals entered an order allowing appellate counsel to withdraw and granting petitioner 30 days in which to file.an appellate brief pro se. Id., at 37. The order further specified that the court would thereafter “independently review the record thoroughly to determine whether any error exists requiring reversal or modification of the sentence . . . .” Ibid. Thus, counsel was permitted to withdraw before the court reviewed the record on nothing more than “a conclusory statement by the appointed attorney on appeal that the case has no merit and that he will file no brief.” Moreover, although granting petitioner several extensions of time to file a brief, the court denied petitioner’s request for the appointment of a new attorney. No merits brief was filed on petitioner’s behalf.
In due course, and without the assistance of any advocacy for petitioner, the Court of Appeals made its own examination of the record to determine whether petitioner received “a fair trial and whether any grave or prejudicial errors occurred therein.” Id., at 40. As an initial matter, the court noted that counsel’s certification that the appeal was meritless was “highly questionable.” Ibid. In reviewing the record and the briefs filed by counsel on behalf of petitioner’s codefendants, the court found “several arguable claims.” Id., at 41. Indeed, the court concluded that plain error had been committed in the jury instructions concerning one count. The court therefore reversed petitioner’s conviction and sentence on that count but affirmed the convictions and sentences on the remaining counts. It concluded that petitioner “suffered no prejudice” as a result of “counsel’s failure to give a more conscientious examination of the record” because the court had thoroughly examined the record and had received the benefit of arguments advanced by counsel for petitioner’s two codefendants. Ibid. Petitioner appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the Ohio Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal. Id., at 45. We granted certiorari, 484 U. S. 1059 (1988), and now reverse.
II
Approximately a quarter of a century ago, in Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963), this Court recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a criminal appellant the right to counsel on a first appeal as of right. We held that a procedure in which appellate courts review the record and “appoint counsel if in their opinion” the assistance of counsel “would be helpful to the defendant or the court,” id., at 355, is an inadequate substitute for guaranteed representation. Four years later, in Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967), we held that a criminal appellant may not be denied representation on appeal based on appointed counsel’s bare assertion that he or she is of the opinion that there is no merit to the appeal.
The Anders opinion did, however, recognize that in some circumstances counsel may withdraw without denying the indigent appellant fair representation provided that certain safeguards are observed: Appointed counsel is first required to conduct “a conscientious examination” of the case. Id., at 744. If he or she is then of the opinion that the case is wholly frivolous, counsel may request leave to withdraw. The request “must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Ibid. Once the appellate court receives this brief, it must then itself conduct “a full examination of all the proceeding^] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Ibid. Only after this separate inquiry, and only after the appellate court finds no nonfrivolous issue for appeal, may the court proceed to consider the appeal on the merits without the assistance of counsel. On the other hand, if the court disagrees with counsel — as the Ohio Court of Appeals did in this case — and concludes that there are nonfrivolous issues for appeal, “it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal.” Ibid.
It is apparent that the Ohio Court of Appeals did not follow the Anders procedures when it granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw, and that it committed an even more serious error when it failed to appoint new counsel after finding that the record supported several arguably meritorious grounds for reversal of petitioner’s conviction and modification of his sentence. As a result, petitioner was left without constitutionally adequate representation on appeal.
The Ohio Court of Appeals erred in two respects in granting counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. First, the motion should have been denied because counsel’s “Certification of Meritless Appeal” failed to draw attention to “anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Ibid. The so-called “Anders brief” serves the valuable purpose of assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation. The importance of this twin function of the Anders brief was noted in Anders itself, 386 U. S., at 745, and was again emphasized last Term. In our decision in McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U. S. 429 (1988), we clearly stated that, the Anders brief is designed both “to provide the appellate courts with a basis for determining whether appointed counsel have fully performed their duty to support their clients’ appeal to the best of their ability,” and also to help the court make “the critical determination whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that counsel should be permitted to withdraw.” Id., at 439. Counsel’s failure to file such a brief left the Ohio court without an adequate basis for determining that he had performed his duty carefully to search the case for arguable error and also deprived the court of the assistance of an advocate in its own review of the cold record on appeal.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals should not have acted on the motion to withdraw before it made its own examination of the record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation of the case was sound. This requirement was plainly stated in Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674, 675 (1958), it was repeated in Anders, 386 U. S., at 744, and it was reiterated last Term in McCoy, 486 U. S., at 442. As we explained in McCoy:
“To satisfy federal constitutional concerns, an appellate court faces two interrelated tasks as it rules on counsel’s motion to withdraw. First, it must satisfy itself that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client’s appeal. Second, it must determine whether counsel has correctly concluded that the appeal is frivolous.” Ibid.
Most significantly, the Ohio court erred by failing to appoint new counsel to represent petitioner after it had determined that the record supported “several arguable claims.” App. 41. As Anders unambiguously provides, “if [the appellate court] finds any of the legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal.” 386 U. S., at 744; see also McCoy, 486 U. S., at 444 (“Of course, if the court concludes that there are nonfrivolous issues to be raised, it must appoint counsel to pursue the appeal and direct that counsel to prepare an advocate’s brief before deciding the merits”). This requirement necessarily follows from an understanding of the interplay between Douglas and Anders. Anders, in essence, recognizes a limited exception to the requirement articulated in Douglas that indigent defendants receive representation on their first appeal as of right. The exception is predicated on the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment — although demanding active and vigorous appellate representation of indigent criminal defendants — does not demand that States require appointed counsel to press upon their appellate courts wholly frivolous arguments. However, once a court determines that the trial record supports arguable claims, there is no basis for the exception and, as provided in Douglas, the criminal appellant is entitled to representation. The Court of Appeals’ determination that arguable issues were presented by the record, therefore, created a constitutional imperative that counsel be appointed.
It bears emphasis that the right to be represented by counsel is among the most fundamental of rights. We have long recognized that “lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.” Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 344 (1963). As a general matter, it is through counsel that all other rights of the accused are protected: “Of all the rights that an accused person has, the right to be represented by counsel is by far the most pervasive, for it affects his ability to assert any other rights he may have.” Schaefer, Federalism and State Criminal Procedure, 70 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 8 (1956); see also Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U. S. 365, 377 (1986); United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648, 654 (1984). The paramount importance of vigorous representation follows from the nature of our adversarial system of justice. This system is premised on the well-tested principle that truth — as well as fairness — is “‘best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question.’” Kaufman, Does the Judge Have a Right to Qualified Counsel?, 61 A. B. A. J. 569, 569 (1975) (quoting Lord Eldon); see also Cronic, 466 U. S., at 655; Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U. S. 312, 318-319 (1981). Absent representation, however, it is unlikely that a criminal defendant will be able adequately to test the government’s case, for, as Justice Sutherland wrote in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932), “[e]ven the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law.” Id., at 69.
The need for forceful advocacy does not come to an abrupt halt as the legal proceeding moves from the trial to appellate stage. Both stages of the prosecution, although perhaps involving unique legal skills, require careful advocacy to ensure that rights are not forgone and that substantial legal and factual arguments are not inadvertently passed over. As we stated in Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U. S. 387 (1985):
“In bringing an appeal as of right from his conviction, a criminal defendant is attempting to demonstrate that the conviction, with its consequent drastic loss of liberty, is unlawful. To prosecute the appeal, a criminal appellant must face an adversary proceeding that — like a trial — is governed by intricate rules that to a layperson would be hopelessly forbidding. An unrepresented appellant— like an unrepresented defendant at trial — is unable to protect the vital interests at stake.” Id., at 396.
By proceeding to decide the merits of petitioner’s appeal without appointing new counsel to represent him, the Ohio Court of Appeals deprived both petitioner and itself of the benefit of an adversary examination and presentation of the issues.
Ill
The State nonetheless maintains that even if the Court of Appeals erred in granting the motion to withdraw and in failing to appoint new counsel, the court’s conclusion that petitioner suffered “no prejudice” indicates both that petitioner has failed to show prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), and also that any error was harmless under Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967). In either event, in the State’s view, the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of petitioner’s conviction should stand. We disagree.
The primary difficulty with the State’s argument is that it proves too much. No one disputes that the Ohio Court of Appeals concluded that the record below supported a number of arguable claims. Thus, in finding that petitioner suffered no prejudice, the court was simply asserting that, based on its review of the case, it was ultimately unconvinced that petitioner’s conviction — with the exception of one count— should be reversed. Finding harmless error or a lack of Strickland prejudice in cases such as this, however, would leave indigent criminal appellants without any of the protections afforded by Anders. Under the State’s theory, if on reviewing the bare appellate record a court would ultimately conclude that the conviction should not be reversed, then the indigent criminal appellant suffers no prejudice by being denied his right to counsel. Similarly, however, if on reviewing the record the court would find a basis for reversal, then the criminal defendant also suffers no prejudice. In either event, the criminal appellant is not harmed and thus has no basis for complaint. Thus, adopting the State’s view would render meaningless the protections afforded by Douglas and Anders.
Nor are we persuaded that the Court of Appeals’ consideration of the appellate briefs filed on behalf of petitioner’s codefendants alters this conclusion. One party’s right to representation on appeal is not satisfied by simply relying on representation provided to another party. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29. To the contrary, “[t]he right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution contemplates the services of an attorney devoted solely to the interests of his client. Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 70 [(1942)].” Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708, 725 (1948) (plurality opinion). A criminal appellant is entitled to a single-minded advocacy for which the mere possibility of a coincidence of interest with a represented codefendant is an inadequate proxy. The State’s argument appears to suggest, however, that there would rarely, if ever, be a remedy for an indigent criminal appellant who only receives representation to the.extent a codefendant’s counsel happens to raise relevant arguments in which they share a common interest. Again, the State’s argument proves too much.
More significantly, the question whether the briefs filed by petitioner’s codefendants, along with the court’s own review of the record, adequately focused the court’s attention on the arguable claims presented in petitioner’s case is itself an issue that should not have been resolved without the benefit of an adversary presentation. An attorney acting on petitioner’s behalf might well have convinced the court that petitioner’s interests were at odds with his codefendants’ or that petitioner’s case involved significant issues not at stake in his codefendants’ cases. Mere speculation that counsel would not have made a difference is no substitute for actual appellate advocacy, particularly when the court’s speculation is itself unguided by the adversary process.
Finally, it is important to emphasize that the denial of counsel in this case left petitioner completely without representation during the appellate court’s actual decisional process. This is quite different from a case in which it is claimed that counsel’s performance was ineffective. As we stated in Strickland, the “[a]ctual or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel altogether is legally presumed to result in prejudice.” 466 U. S., at 692. Our decision in United States v. Cronic, likewise, makes clear that “[t]he presumption that counsel’s assistance is essential requires us to conclude that a trial is unfair if the accused is denied counsel at a critical stage of his trial.” 466 U. S., at 659 (footnote omitted). Similarly, Chapman recognizes that the right to counsel is “so basic to a fair trial that [its] infraction can never be treated as harmless error.” 386 U. S., at 23, and n. 8. And more recently, in Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U. S. 249, 256 (1988), we stated that a pervasive denial of counsel casts such doubt on the fairness of the trial process, that it can never be considered harmless error. Because the fundamental importance of the assistance of counsel does not cease as the prosecutorial process moves from the trial to the appellate stage, see supra, at 85, the presumption of prejudice must extend as well to the denial of counsel on appeal.
The present case is unlike a case in which counsel fails to press a particular argument on appeal, cf. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U. S. 745 (1983), or fails to argue an issue as effectively as he or she might-. Rather, at the time the Court of Appeals first considered the merits of petitioner’s appeal, appellate counsel had already been granted leave to withdraw; petitioner was thus entirely without the assistance of counsel on appeal. In fact, the only relief that counsel sought before the Court of Appeals was leave to withdraw, an action that can hardly be deemed advocacy on petitioner’s behalf. Cf. McCoy, 486 U. S., at 439-440, n. 13. It is therefore inappropriate to apply either the prejudice requirement of Strickland or the. harmless-error analysis of Chapman.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Petitioner was charged in counts 5 and 6 of the indictment with felonious assault. App. 6-7; see Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.11(A)(2) (1987). In examining the record, the Court of Appeals discovered that the trial court neglected to instruct the jury concerning an element of this crime. Applying the State’s plain-error doctrine, which requires a showing of substantial prejudice, the Court of Appeals reversed petitioner’s conviction under count 6 of the indictment, but let stand his conviction under count 5. App. 41-43.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted:
“At this stage in the proceedings only the barren record speaks for the indigent, and, unless the printed pages show that an injustice has been committed, he is forced to go without a champion on appeal. Any real chance he may have had of showing that his appeal has hidden merit is deprived him wrhen the court decides on an ex parte examination of the record that the assistance of counsel is not required.” 372 U. S., at 356.
Counsel’s “Certification of Meritless Appeal,” which simply noted that counsel, after carefully reviewing the record, “found no errors requiring reversal, modification and/or vacation of appellant’s” conviction or sentence, App. 35, bears a marked resemblance to the no-merit letter we held inadequate in Anders. The no-merit letter at issue in Anders read as follows:
“Dear Judge Van Dyke:
“This is to advise you that I have received and examined the trial transcript of CHARLIE ANDERS as it relates to his conviction of the crime of possession of narcotics.
“I will not file a brief on appeal as I am of the opinion that there is no merit to the appeal. I have visited and communicated with Mr. Anders and have explained my views and opinions to him as they relate to his appeal.
“Mr. Anders has advised me that he wishes to file a brief in this matter on his own behalf. ...” Tr. of Record in Anders v. California, O. T. 1966, No. 98, p. 6.
Not only does the Anders brief assist the court in determining that counsel has carefully reviewed the record for arguable claims, but, in marginal cases, it also provides an independent inducement to counsel to perform a diligent review:
“The danger that a busy or inexperienced lawyer might opt in favor of a one sentence letter instead of an effective brief in an individual marginal ease is real, notwithstanding the dedication that typifies the profession. If, however, counsel’s ultimate evaluation of the case must be supported by a written opinion ‘referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal,’ [Anders,] 386 U. S., at 744 . . . , the temptation to discharge an obligation in summary fashion is avoided, and the reviewing court is provided with meaningful assistance.” Nickols v. Gagnon, 454 F. 2d 467, 470 (CA7 1971) (footnotes omitted), cert. denied, 408 U. S. 925 (1972).
In addition, simply putting pen to paper can often shed new light on what may at first appear to be an open-and-shut issue.
One hurdle faced by an appellate court in reviewing a record on appeal without the assistance of counsel is that the record may not accurately and unambiguously reflect all that occurred at the trial. Presumably, appellate counsel may contact the trial attorney to discuss the case and may thus, in arguing the appeal, shed additional light on the proceedings below. The court, of course, is not in the position to conduct such ex parte communications.
Obviously, a court cannot determine whether counsel is in fact correct in concluding that an appeal is frivolous without itself examining the record for arguable appellate issues. In granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, however, the Ohio Court of Appeals noted that it was deferring its independent review of the record for a later date. See App. 37.
The Court of Appeals’ finding of “no prejudice” is not free from ambiguity. The court wrote: “Because we have thoroughly examined the record and already considered the assignments of error raised in the other defendants’ appeals we find appellant has suffered no prejudice in his counsel’s failure to give a more conscientious examination of the record.” App. 40-41. Not only does this language leave unclear whether the court relied on Strickland, Chapman, or both cases in concluding that petitioner was not entitled to relief, but it also appears to limit the finding of no prejudice to “counsel’s failure to give a more conscientious examination of the record. ” The court did not recognize that petitioner’s rights were also violated by its own omission in failing to appoint new counsel, and thus did not consider whether this separate violation was prejudicial.
There is, of course, a significant distinction between joint representation on appeal, which is often appropriate, and the mere possibility of a coincidence of interest between represented and unrepresented criminal appellants.
Although petitioner has been represented by counsel in this Court, we decline to sit in place of the Ohio Court of Appeals in the first instance to determine whether petitioner was prejudiced as to any appellate issue by reason of either counsel’s failure to file an Anders brief or the court’s failure to appoint new counsel. Cf. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U. S. 365, 390 (1986). It would be particularly inappropriate for us to do so in a case raising both factual issues and questions of Ohio law.
A number of the Federal Courts of Appeals have reached a like conclusion when faced with similar denials of appellate counsel. See United States ex rel. Thomas v. O’Leary, 856 F. 2d 1011 (CA7 1988); Freels v. Hills, 843 F. 2d 958 (CA6 1988); Jenkins v. Coombe, 821 F. 2d 158 (CA2 1987), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1008 (1988); Cannon v. Berry, 727 F. 2d 1020 (CA11 1984). But cf. Sanders v. Clarke, 856 F. 2d 1134 (CA8 1988); Lockhart v. McCotter, 782 F. 2d 1275 (CA5 1986), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 1030 (1987); Griffin v. West, 791 F. 2d 1578 (CA10 1986).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 of the District Court is reversed and the case is remanded for consideration by that court of the only claim that was left open at this Court’s prior disposition of this litigation, to wit, whether “the preferred stock issue as approved by the [Interstate Commerce] Commission was in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act.” Alleghany Cory. v. Breswick & Co., 353 U. S. 151, 175.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this case is the validity of a conviction under § 798.05 of the Florida statutes, providing that:
“Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who -are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months,' or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.”
Because the section applies only to a white person and a Negro who .commit the specified acts and because no couple other than one made up of a white and a Negro is subject to conviction upon proof of the elements comprising the offense it proscribes, we hold § 798.05 invalid as a denial of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The challenged statute is a part of chapter 798 entitled “Adultery and Fornication.” Section 798.01 forbids living in adultery and § 798.02 proscribes lewd cohabitation. Both sections are of general application, both require proof of intercourse to sustain a conviction, and both authorize imprisonment up to two years. Section 798.03, also of general application, proscribes fornication and authorizes a three-month jail sentence. The fourth section of the chapter, 798.04, makes criminal a white person and a Negro’s living together in adultery or fornication. A one-year prison sentence is authorized. The conduct it reaches appears to be the same as is proscribed under the first two sections of the chapter. Section 798.05, the section at issue in this case, applies only to a white person and a Negro who habitually occupy the same room at nighttime. This offense, however, is distinguishable from the other sections of the chapter in that it is the only one which does not require proof of intercourse along with the other elements of the crime.
Appellants were charged with a violation of § 798.05. The elements of the offense as described by the trial judge are the (1) habitual occupation of a room at night, (2) by a Negro and a white person (3) who are not married. The State presented evidence going to each factor, appellants’ constitutional contentions were overruled and the jury returned a verdict of guilty: Solely on the authority of Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed and sustained the validity of § 798.05 as against appellants’ claims that the section denied them equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We noted probable jurisdiction, 377 U. S. 914. We deal with the single issue of equal protection and on this basis set aside these convictions.
I.
It is readily apparent that § 798.05 treats the interracial couple made up of a white person and a Negro differently than, it does any other couple. No couple other than a Negro and a white person can be convicted under § 798.05 and no other section proscribes the precise conduct banned by § 798.05. Florida makes no claim to the contrary in this Court. However, all whites and Negroes who engage in the forbidden conduct are covered by the section and each member of the interracial cbuple is subject to the same penalty.
In this situation, Pace v. Alabama, supra, is relied upon as controlling authority. In our view, however, Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis.in the subsequent decisions of this Court. In that case, the Court let stand a conviction under an Alabama statute forbidding adultery or fornication between a white pérson and a Negro and imposing a greater penalty than allowed under another Alabama statute of general application, and proscribing the same conduct whatever the race of the participants. The opinion acknowledged that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause “was to prevent hostile and discriminating State legislation against any person or class of persons” and that equality of protection uiider the laws implies that any person,, “whatever his race .... shall not be subjected, for the same offence, to any greater or different punishment.” ' 106 U. S., at 584. But taking quite literally its own words, “for the same offence” (emphasis supplied), the Court pointed out that Alabama had designated as a separate offense the commission by a white person and a Negro of the identical acts forbidden by the general provisions. There was, therefore, no impermissible discrimination because the difference in punishment was “directed against the offence designated” and because in the case of each offense all who committed it, white and Negro, were treated ¿like. Under Pace the Alabama law regulating the conduct of both Negroes and whites satisfied the Equal Protection Clause since it applied equally to and among the . members of the class which it reached without regard to the fact that the statute did not reach other types of couples performing the identical conduct and without any necessity to justify the difference in penalty established for the.two offenses. Because each of the Alabama laws applied equally to those to whom it was applicable, the different treatment accorded interracial and intraracial couples was irrelevant.
This narrow view of the Equal Protection Clause was soon swept away. While acknowledging the currency of the view that “if the law deals alike with all of a certain class” it is not obnoxious to the Equal Protection Clause and that “as a general proposition, this is undeniably true,” the Court in Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 155, said that it was “equally true that such classification cannot be made arbitrarily. . . .” Classification “must always rest upon some difference which bears a reasonable and just relation to the act in respect to which the classification is proposed, and can never be made arbitrarily and without any such basis.” Ibid. “[Arbitrary selection can never be justified by calling it classification.” Id., at 159. This approach was confirmed in Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96, 104-105, and in numerous other cases. See, e. g., American Sugar Ref. Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U. S. 89, 92; Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 417; F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415; Air-Way Elec. Appliance Corp. v. Day, 266 U. S. 71, 85; Louisville Gas.& Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U. S. 32, 37-39; Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. v. Harrison, 301 U. S. 459, 461-463; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541-543; Kotch v. Pilot Comm’rs, 330 U. S, 552, 556-557; Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475, 478; Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, 17-19 (opinion of Black, J., announcing judgment), 21-22 (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Morey v. Doud, 354 U. S. 457, 465-466; Central R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 370 U. S. 607, 617-618; Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353, 356-357.
Judicial inquiry under the Equal Protection Clause, therefore, does not end with a showing of equal application among the members of the class defined by the legislation. The courts must reach and determine the question whether the classifications drawn in a statute are reasonable, in fight of its purpose — in this case, whether there is an arbitrary or invidious discrimination between those classes covered by Florida’s cohabitation law and those excluded. That question is what Pace ignored and what must be faced here.
Normally,,the widest discretion is fallowed the legislative judgment in determining whether to attack some, rather than all, of the manifestations of the evil aimed at; and normally that judgment is given the benefit of every conceivable circumstance which might suffice to characterize the classification as reasonable rather than arbitrary and invidious. See, e. g., McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 425-426; Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 366 U. S. 582, 591-592; Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522, 528; Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U. S. 106, 110; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78-79. But we deal here with a classification based upon the race of the participants, which must be viewed in light of the historical fact that the central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate racial discrimination emanating from official sources in the States. This strong policy renders racial classifications “constitutionally suspect,” Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 499; and subject to the “most rigid scrutiny,” Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 216; and “in most circumstances irrelevant” to any constitutionally acceptable legislative purpose, Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100. Thus it is that racial classifications have been held invalid in a variety of contexts. See, e. g., Virginia Board of Elections v. Hamm, 379 U. S. 19 (designation of race in voting and property records); Anderson v. Martin, 375 U. S. 399 (designation óf race on nomination papers and ballots); Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526 (segregation in public parks and playgrounds); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (segregation in public schools).
We deal here with a racial classification embodied in a criminal statute. In this context, where the power of the State weighs most heavily upon the individual or the group, we must be especially sensitive to the policies of the Equal Protection Clause which, as reflected in congressional enactments dating from 1870, were intended to secure “the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property” and to subject all persons “to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.” R. S. § 1977, 42 TJ. S. C. § 1981 (1958 ed.).
Our inquiry, therefore, is whether there clearly appears in the relevant materials some overriding statutory purpose requiring the proscription of the specified conduct when engaged in by a white person and a Negro, but not otherwise. Without such justification the racial classification contained in § 798.05 is reduced to an invidious' discrimination forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause.
The Florida Supreme Court, relying upon Pace v. Alabama, supra, found no legal discrimination at all and gave no consideration to statutory purpose. The State in its brief in this Court, however, says that the legislative purpose of § 798.05, like the other séctions of chapter 798, was to prevent breaches of the basic concepts of sexual decency; and we see no reason to quarrel with the State’s characterization of this statute, dealing as it does with illicit extramarital and premarital promiscuity.
We find nothing in this suggested legislative purpose, however, which makes it essential to punish promiscuity of one racial group and not that of another. There is no suggestion that a white person and a Negro are any more, likely habitually to occupy the same room together than the white or the Negro couple or to engage in illicit intercourse if they do. Sections 798.01-798.05 indicate no legislative conviction that promiscuity by the interracial couple presents any particular problems requiring separate or different treatment if the suggested over-all policy of the chapter is to beadequately served. Sections 798.01-798.03 deal with adultery, lewd cohabitation and fornication, in that order. All are of general application. Section 798.04 prohibits a white and a Negro from living in a state of adultery or fornication and imposes a lesser period of imprisonment than does either § 798.01 or § 798.02, each of which is applicable to all persons. . Simple fornication by the interracial couple is covered only by the general provision of § 798.03. This is not, therefore, a case where the class defined in the law is that from which “the evil mainly is to be feared,” Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 144; or where the “[e]vils in the same field may be of different dimensions and proportions, requiring different remedies,” Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489; or even one where the State has done as much as it can as fast as it can, Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200, 208. That a general evil will be partially corrected may at times, and without more, serve to justify the limited application of a criminal law; but legislative discretion to employ the piecemeal approach stops short of permitting a State to narrow statutory coverage to focus on a racial group. Such classifications bear a far heavier burden of justification. “When the law lays an unequal hand bn those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins [118 U. S. 356]; Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337.” Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541.
II.
Florida’s remaining argument is related to . its law against interracial marriage, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 741.11, which, in the light of certain legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, is said to be immune from attack under the Equal Protection Clause. Its interracial . cohabitation law, § 798.05, is likewise valid, it is argued, because it is ancillary to and serves-the same purpose as the miscegenation law itself.
We reject this argument, without reaching the question of the validity of the State’s prohibition against interracial marriage or the soundness of the arguments rooted in the history of the Amendment. For even if we posit the constitutionality of the ban against the marriage of a Negro and a white, it-does not follow that the cohabitation law is not to be subjected to independent examination under the Fourteenth Amendment. “[Ajssuming, for purposes of argument only, that the basic prohibition is constitutional,” in this case the law against interracial marriage, “it does not follow that there is no constitutional limit, to the means which may be used to enforce •it.” Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633, 646-647. See also Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 81. Section 798.06 must therefore itself pass muster- under'the Fourteenth Amendment; and for reasons quite similar to those already given, we think it fails the test.
There is involved here an exercise of the state police power which trenches upon the constitutionally protected freedom from invidious official discrimination based on race. Such a law, even though enacted pursuant to a valid state interest, bears a heavy burden of justification, as we have said, and will be upheld only if it is necessary, and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy. See the cases cited, supra, p. 192. Those provisions of chapter 798 which are neutral as to race express a general and strong state policy against promiscuous conduct, whether engaged in by those who are married, those who may marry or those who may not. These provisions, if enforced, would reach illicit relations of any kind and in this way protect the integrity of the marriage laws of the State, including what is claimed to be a valid ban on interracial marriage. These same provisions, moreover, punish premarital sexual relations as severely or more .severely in some instances than do those provisions which focus on the interracial couple. Florida has offered no argument that the State’s policy against interracial marriage cannot be as adequately served by the general, neutral, and existing ban on illicit behavior as by a provision such as § 798.05 which singles out the promiscuous interracial couple for special statutory treatment.' In short, it has not been shown that § 798.05 is a necessary adjunct to the State’s ban on interracial marriage. We accordingly invalidate § 798.05 without expressing any views about the State’s prohibition of interracial marriage, and reverse these convictions.
Reversed.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 798.01 — Living in open adultery:
“Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding two years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.”
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 798.02 — Lewd and lascivious behavior:
“If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man ór' woman, married or unmarried, is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be punished by imprisonment-in the state prison not exceeding two years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding three hundred dollars.”
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 798.03 — Fornication:
“If any man commits fornication with a woman, each of them shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding three months, or by fine not exceeding thirty dollars.”
Fla. Stat. Ann. §798.04 — White'1 persons and Negroes living in adultery:
“If any white person and negro, or mulatto, shall five in adultery or fornication with each other, each shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.”
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 798.05 — Negro man and white woman or white man and Negro woman occupying same room:
“Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.”
Section 798.02 proscribes two offenses: (1) open, arid gross lewdness and lascivious behavior by either a man or a woman; (2) lewd and lascivious association and cohabitation by a man and woman. The latter offense is identical to that proscribed by § 798.01, except that § 798.01 contains the additional requirement that one of the participants be married to a third party. Conviction under either section requires a showing that, the parties lived together and maintained sexual relations over a period of time as in the conjugal relation between husband and wife. Braswell v. State, 88 Fla. 183, 101 So. 232 (1924), Lockhart v. State, 79 Fla. 824, 85 So. 153 (1920) (both cases involving what is now §798.01); Wildman v. State, 157 Fla. 334, 25 So. 2d 808 (1946), Benton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, 28 So. 774 (1900) (cases involving, respectively, §798.02 and what is now that statute).
Unlike all the other sections of chapter 798, § 798.03 does not relate only to habitual conduct. It proscribes single and occasional acts of fornication.' See Collins v. State, 83 Fla. 458, 92 So. 681 (1922).
We have not found any decisions construing § 798.04. Its operative language, “live in adultery or fornication,” is substantially identical to the phrase “lives in an open state of adultery” in § 798.01, which has been construed to mean habitual conduct. That language sharply contrasts with the phrase “commits fornication” in § 798.03, which proscribes casual acts of fornication. Textual analysis therefore leads us to conclude that the Florida courts would give § 798.04 a similar construction to that accorded §§ 798.01 and 798.02. This conclusion that § 798.04 is duplicative of other provisions is consistent with the apparent lack of prosecutions under § 798.04.
Parramore v. State, 81 Fla. 621, 88 So. 472 (1921). Compare note 2, suprn.
Appellants present-two other contentions which it is unnecessary for us to consider in view, of our disposition of their principal claim. First, they challenge the constitutionality of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 741.11— Marriages between white and Negro persons prohibited:
“It is unlawful for any white male person residing or being in this state to intermarry with any negro female person; and it is in like manner unlawful for any white female person residing or being in this state to intermarry with any negro male person; and every marriage formed or solemnized in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be utterly null and void . . .
The basis for appellants' complaint regarding this statute is that in charging the jury with respect to appellants’ defense of common-law marriage the trial judge stated, without objection by appellants, that because of § 741:11 it would have been unlawful for appellants to have entered into a common-law marriage in Florida. Appellants contend that this application of the marriage statute was a denial of due process and equal protection secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Appellants’ final claim is that their convictions violated due process either because there was no proof of appellant McLaughlin’s race or because the Florida definition of “Negro” is unconstitutionally vague. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 1.01 (6) provides: “The words.‘negro,’.‘colored,’ 'colored persons,’ ‘mulatto’ or ‘persons of color,’ when applied to persons, include every person having one-éighth or more' of African or negro blood.” At the trial one of . the arresting officers was permitted, over objection, to state his conclusion as to the race of each appellant based on his observation of their physical appearance. Appellants claim that the statutory definition is circular in- that it provides no independent means of determining the race of a defendant’s ancestors and that testimony based on appearance is impermissible because not related to any objective standard. Florida argues that under Florida appellate procedure this claim was abandoned when the appellants failed to argue it in the brief they presented to the Florida Supreme Court.
“The defect in the argument of counsel consists in his assumption that any discrimination is made by the laws of Alabama in the punishment provided for the offence for which the plaintiff in error was indicted when committed by a person of the African race and when committed by a white person. The two sections of the code cited are entirely consistent. The one prescribes, generally, a punishment for an offence committed between persons of different sexes; the other prescribes a punishment for an offence which can only be committed where the two sexes are of different races. There is in neither section any discrimination against either race. Sect. 4184 equally includes the offence when the persons of .the two sexes are both white and when they are both black. Sect. 4189 applies the same punishment to both offenders, the white and the black. Indeed, the offence against which this latter section is aimed cannot be committed without involving the persons of both races in the same punishment. Whatever discrimination ,is made in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offence designated and not against the person of any particular color or race. The punishment of each offending person, whether white or black, is the same.” 106 U. S., at 585.
Had the Court been presented with a statute that,- for example, prohibited any Negro male from having carnal knowledge of a white . female and penalized only the Negro, such a statute would unquestionably have been held to deny equal protection even though it applied equally to all to whom it applied. See Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306-308; Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 12 Fed. Cas. 252 (No. 6546) (C. C. D. Cal. 1879) (Field, J.) (“Chinese Pigtail” case). Because of the manifest inadequacy of any approach requiring only equal application to the class defined in the statute, one may conclude that in Pace the Court actually ruled sub silentio that the (different treatment meted out to interracial and intraracial couples was based on a reasonable legislative purpose. If the Court did reach that conclusion it failed to articulate it or to give its reasons, and for the reasons stated infra we reject the contention presented here that the criminal statute presently under review is grounded in a reasonable legislative policy.
The Pace holding itself may have undergone some modification when- the Court a few years later cited it for the proposition “that a different punishment for the same offence may be inflicted-under particular circumstances, provided it is dealt out to all alike who are similarly situated.” Moore v. Missouri, 159 U. S. 673, 678.
“Section 798.05, Florida Statutes, under which the defendants were charged, simply prohibits habitual cohabiting of the same room by members of opposite races who are also members of opposite sexes. The terms of Section 798.05, supra, explicitly seek to avoid circumstances wherein there are high potentials of sexual engagement. . . . Section 798.02, Florida Statutes, which prohibits'intra-racial lewd cohabitation, has generally been interpreted as requiring the additional element of sexual occurrence as distinguished from the provisions of Section 798.05, supra, which only require a high potential of such occurrence. The legislative purpose in enacting both Sections 798.02 and 798.05, supra, is to prevent illegal sexual occurrences. . .. The purpose of the legislature in enacting both Sections 798.02 and 798.05, Florida Statutes, was to prevent such breaches of basic concepts of sexual decency whether committed by interracial or intra-racial parties.” Brief for Appellee, 55-56.
In the Skinner case the Court invalidated on equal-protection grounds Oklahoma’s law providing for the sterilization of multiple offenders but exempting offenses arising out of the prohibition laws, the revenue acts, embezzlement or political offenses. The Court said:
“Oklahoma makes no attempt to say that he who commits larceny by trespass or trick or fraud has biologically inheritable traits which he who commits embezzlement lacks. Oklahoma’s line between larceny by fraud and embezzlement is determined, as we have noted, ‘with reference to the time when the fraudulent intent to convert the property to the taker’s own use’ arises. Riley v. State, supra, 64 Okla. Cr. at p. 189, 78 P. 2d p. 715. We have not the slightest basis for inferring, that that line has any significance in eugenics, nor that the inheritability of criminal traits follows the neat legal distinctions which the law has marked between those two offenses. In terms' of fines and imprisonment, the crimes of larceny - and embezzlement rate the same under the Oklahoma code. Only when it comes to sterilization are the pains and penalties of the law different. The equal protection clause would indeed be a formula of empty words if such conspicuously artificial lines could be drawn.” 316 U. S.,at 541-542.
See note 6, supra. See also Fla. Const., Art. 16, § 24.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Sotomayok
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under this Court’s state-action immunity doctrine, when a local governmental entity acts pursuant to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy to displace competition, it is exempt from scrutiny under the federal antitrust laws. In this case, we must decide whether a Georgia law that creates special-purpose public entities called hospital authorities and gives those entities general corporate powers, including the power to acquire hospitals, clearly articulates and affirmatively expresses a state policy to permit acquisitions that substantially lessen competition. Because Georgia’s grant of general corporate powers to hospital authorities does not include permission to use those powers anticompetitively, we hold that the clear-articulation test is not satisfied and state-action immunity does not apply.
f—4
A
In 1941, the State of Georgia amended its Constitution to ■ allow political subdivisions to provide health care services. 1941 Ga. Laws p. 50. The State concurrently enacted the Hospital Authorities Law (Law), id., at 241, Ga. Code Ann. §31-7-70 et seq. (2012), “to provide a mechanism for the operation and maintenance of needed health care facilities in the several counties and municipalities of th[e] state.” §31-7-76(a). “The purpose of the constitutional provision and the statute based thereon was to... create an organization which could carry out and make more workable the duty which the State owed to its indigent sick.” DeJarnette v. Hospital Auth. of Albany, 195 Ga. 189, 200, 23 S. E. 2d. 716, 723 (1942) (citations omitted). As amended, the Law. authorizes each county and municipality, and certain combinations of counties or municipalities, to create “a public body corporate and politic” called a “hospital authority.” §§ 31-7-72(a), (d). Hospital authorities are governed by five-to nine-member boards that are appointed by the governing body of the county or municipality in their area of operation. § 31-7-72(a).
Under the Law, a hospital authority “exercise[s] public and essential governmental functions” and is delegated “all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate” the Law’s purposes. §31-7-75. Giving more content to that general delegation, the Law enumerates 27 powers conferred upon hospital authorities, including the power “[t]o acquire by purchase, lease, or otherwise and to operate projects,” § 31-7-75(4), which are defined to include hospitals and other public health facilities, §31-7-71(5); “[t]o construct, reconstruct, improve, alter, and repair projects,” §31-7-75(5); “[t]o lease... for operation by others any project” provided certain conditions are satisfied, § 31-7-75(7); and “[t]o establish rates and charges for the services and use of the facilities of the authority,” §31-7-75(10). Hospital authorities may not operate or construct any project for profit, and accordingly they must set rates so as only to cover operating expenses and create reasonable reserves. § 31-7-77.
B
In the same year that the Law was adopted, the city of Albany and Dougherty County established the Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County (Authority) and the Authority promptly acquired Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital (Memorial), which has been in operation in Albany since 1911. In 1990, the Authority restructured its operations by forming two private nonprofit corporations to manage Memorial: Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. (PPHS), and its subsidiary, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. (PPMH). The Authority leased Memorial to PPMH for $1 per year for 40 years. Under the lease, PPMH has exclusive authority over the operation of Memorial, including the ability to set rates for services. Consistent with §31-7-75(7), PPMH is subject to lease conditions that require provision of care to the indigent sick and limit its rate of return.
Memorial is one of two hospitals in Dougherty County. The second, Palmyra Medical Center (Palmyra), was established in Albany in 1971 and is located just two miles from Memorial. At the time suit was brought in this case, Palmyra was operated by a national for-profit hospital network, HCA, Inc. (HCA). Together, Memorial and Palmyra account for 86 percent of the market for acute-care hospital services provided to commercial health care plans and their customers in the six counties surrounding Albany. Memorial accounts for 75 percent of that market on its own.
In 2010, PPHS began discussions with HCA about acquiring Palmyra. Following negotiations, PPHS presented the Authority with a plan under which the Authority would purchase Palmyra with PPHS controlled funds and then lease Palmyra to a PPHS subsidiary for $1 per year under the Memorial lease agreement. The Authority unanimously approved the transaction.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) shortly thereafter issued an administrative complaint alleging that the proposed purchase-and-lease transaction would create a virtual monopoly and would substantially reduce competition in the market for acute-care hospital services, in violation of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 719, 15 U. S. C. § 45, and § 7 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 18. The FTC, along with the State of Georgia, subsequently filed suit against the Authority, HCA, Palmyra, PPHS, PPMH, and the new PPHS subsidiary created to manage Palmyra (collectively respondents), seeking to enjoin the transaction pending administrative proceedings. See 15 U. S. C. §§26, 53(b).
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia denied the request for a preliminary injunction and granted respondents’ motion to dismiss. 793 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (2011). The District Court held that respondents are immune from antitrust liability under the state-action doctrine. See id., at 1366-1381.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 663 F. 3d 1369 (2011). As an initial matter, the court “agree[d] with the [FTC] that, on the facts alleged, the joint operation of Memorial and Palmyra woúld substantially lessen competition or tend to create, if not create, a monopoly.” Id., at 1375. But the court concluded that the transaction was immune from antitrust liability. See id., at 1375-1378. The Court of Appeals explained that as a local governmental entity, the Authority was entitled to state-action immunity if the challenged anticompetitive conduct was a “ ‘foreseeable result’ ” of Georgia’s legislation. Id., at 1375. According to the court, anticompetitive conduct is foreseeable if it could have been “ ‘reasonably anticipated’ ” by the state legislature; it is not necessary, the court reasoned, for an anticompetitive effect to “be ‘one that ordinarily occurs, routinely occurs, or is inherently likely to occur as a result of the empowering legislation.’” Id., at 1375-1376 (quoting FTC v. Hospital Bd. of Directors of Lee Cty., 38 P. 3d 1184, 1188, 1190-1191 (CA11 1994)). Applying that standard, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Law contemplated the anticompetitive conduct challenged by the FTC. The court noted the “impressive breadth” of the powers given to hospital authorities, which include traditional powers of private corporations and a few additional capabilities, such as the power to exercise eminent domain. See 663 F. 3d, at 1376. More specifically, the court reasoned that the Georgia Legislature must have anticipated that the grant of power to hospital authorities to acquire and lease projects would produce anticompetitive effects because “[fjoresee-ably, acquisitions could consolidate ownership of competing hospitals, eliminating competition between them.” Id., at 1377.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the FTC’s alternative argument that state-action immunity did not apply because the transaction in substance involved a transfer of control over Palmyra from one private entity to another, with the Authority acting as a mere conduit for the sale to evade antitrust liability. See id., at 1376, n. 12.
We granted certiorari on two questions: whether the Georgia Legislature, through the powers it vested in hospital authorities, clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed a state policy to displace competition in the market for hospital services; and if so, whether state-action immunity is nonetheless inapplicable as a result of the Authority’s minimal participation in negotiating the terms of the sale of Palmyra and the Authority’s limited supervision of the two hospitals’ operations. See 567 U. S. 933 (2012). Concluding that the answer to the first question is “no,” we reverse without reaching the second question.
II
In Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943), this Court held that because “nothing in the language of the Sherman Act [15 U. S. C. § 1 et seq.] or in its history” suggested that Congress intended to restrict the sovereign capacity of the States to regulate their economies, the Act should not be read to bar States from imposing market restraints “as an act of government.” Id., at 350, 352. Following Parker, we have held that under certain circumstances, immunity from the federal antitrust laws may extend to nonstate actors carrying out the State’s regulatory program. See Patrick v. Burget, 486 U. S. 94, 99-100 (1988); Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U. S. 48, 66-57 (1985).
But given the fundamental national values of free enterprise and economic competition that are embodied in the federal antitrust laws, “state-action immunity is disfavored, much as are repeals by implication.” FTC v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 504 U. S. 621, 636 (1992). Consistent with this preference, we recognize state-action immunity only when it is clear that the challenged anticompetitive conduct is undertaken pursuant to a regulatory scheme that “is the State’s own.” Id., at 635. Accordingly, “[c]loser analysis is required when the activity at issue is not directly that of” the State itself, but rather “is carried out by others pursuant to state authorization.” Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U. S. 558, 568 (1984). When determining whether the anticompetitive acts of private parties are entitled to immunity, we employ a two-part test, requiring first that “the challenged restraint... be one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy,” and second that “the policy... be actively supervised by the State.” California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U. S. 97, 105 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted).
This case involves allegedly anticompetitive conduct undertaken by a substate governmental entity. Because municipalities and other political subdivisions are not themselves sovereign, state-action immunity under Parker does not apply to them directly. See Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U. S. 365, 370 (1991); Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U. S. 389, 411-413 (1978) (plurality opinion). At the same time, however, substate governmental entities do receive immunity from antitrust scrutiny when they act “pursuant to state policy to displace competition with regulation or monopoly public service.” Id., at 413. This rule “preserves to the States their freedom... to use their municipalities to administer state regulatory policies free of the inhibitions of the federal antitrust laws without at the same time permitting purely parochial interests to disrupt the Nation’s free-market goals.” Id., at 415-416.
As with private parties, immunity will only attach to the activities of local governmental entities if they are undertaken pursuant to a “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” state policy to displace competition. Community Communications Co. v. Boulder, 455 U. S. 40, 52 (1982). But unlike private parties, such entities are not subject to the “active state supervision requirement” because they have less of an incentive to pursue their own self-interest under the guise of implementing state policies. Hallie v. Eau Claire, 471 U. S. 34, 46-47 (1985).
“[T]o pass the ‘clear articulation’ test,” a state legislature need not “expressly state in a statute or its legislative history that the legislature intends for the delegated action to have anticompetitive effects.” Id., at 43. Rather, we explained in Hallie that state-action immunity applies if the anticompetitive effect was the “foreseeable result” of what the State authorized. Id., at 42. We applied that principle in Omni, where we concluded that the clear-articulation test was satisfied because the suppression of competition in the billboard market was the foreseeable result of a state statute authorizing municipalities to adopt zoning ordinances regulating the construction of buildings and other structures. 499 U. S., at 373.
Ill
A
Applying the clear-articulation test to the Law before us, we conclude that respondents’ claim for state-action immunity fails because there is no evidence the State affirmatively contemplated that hospital authorities would displace competition by consolidating hospital ownership. The acquisition and leasing powers exercised by the Authority in the challenged transaction, which were the principal powers relied upon by the Court of Appeals in finding state-action immunity, see 663 F. 3d, at 1377, mirror general powers routinely conferred by state law upon private corporations. Other powers possessed by hospital authorities that the Court of Appeals characterized as having “impressive breadth,” id., at 1376, also fit this pattern, including the ability to make and execute contracts, § 31-7-75(3), to set rates for services, §31-7-75(10), to sue and be sued, §31-7-75(1), to borrow money, §31-7-75(17), and the residual authority to exercise any or all powers possessed by private corporations, §31-7-75(21).
Our case law makes clear that state-law authority to act is insufficient to establish state-action immunity; the substate governmental entity must also show that it has been delegated authority to act or regulate anticompetitively. See Omni, 499 U. S., at 372. In Boulder, we held that Colorado’s Home Rule Amendment allowing municipalities to govern local affairs did not satisfy the clear-articulation test. 455 U. S., at 55-56. There was no doubt in that case that the city had authority as a matter of state law to pass an ordinance imposing a moratorium on a cable provider’s expansion of service. Id,., at 45-46. But we rejected the proposition that “the general grant of power to enact ordinances necessarily implies state authorization to enact specific anticom-petitive ordinances” because such an approach “would wholly eviscerate the concepts of ‘clear articulation and affirmative expression’ that our precedents require.” Id., at 56. We explained that when a State’s position “is one of mere neutrality respecting the municipal actions challenged as anti-competitive,” the State cannot be said to have “‘contemplated’ ” those anticompetitive actions. Id., at 55.
The principle articulated in Boulder controls this case. Grants of general corporate power that allow substate governmental entities to participate in a competitive marketplace should be, can be, and typically are used in ways that raise no federal antitrust concerns. As a result, a State that has delegated such general powers “can hardly be said to have ‘contemplated’” that they will be used anticompeti-tively. Ibid. See also 1A P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶225⅜ p. 131 (3d ed. 2006) (hereinafter Areeda & Hovenkamp) (“When a state grants power to an inferior entity, it presumably grants the power to do the thing contemplated, but not to do so anticompetitively”). Thus, while the Law does allow the Authority to acquire hospitals, it does not clearly articulate and affirmatively express a state policy empowering the Authority to make acquisitions of existing hospitals that will substantially lessen competition.
B
In concluding otherwise, and specifically in reasoning that the Georgia Legislature “must have anticipated” that acquisitions by hospital authorities “would produce anticompeti-tive effects,” 663 F. 3d, at 1377, the Court of Appeals applied the concept of “foreseeability” from our clear-articulation test too loosely.
In Hattie, we recognized that it would “embod[y] an unrealistic view of how legislatures work and of how statutes are written” to require state legislatures to explicitly authorize specific anticompetitive effects before state-action immunity could apply. 471 U. S., at 43. “No legislature,” we explained, “can be expected to catalog all of the anticipated effects” of a statute delegating authority to a substate governmental entity. Ibid. Instead, we have approached the clear-articulation inquiry more practically, but without diluting the ultimate requirement that the State must have affirmatively contemplated the displacement of competition such that the challenged anticompetitive effects can be attributed to the “state itself.” Parker, 317 U. S., at 352. Thus, we have concluded that a state policy to displace federal antitrust law was sufficiently expressed where the displacement of competition was the inherent, logical, or ordinary result of the exercise of authority delegated by the state legislature. In that scenario, the State must have foreseen and implicitly endorsed the anticompetitive effects as consistent with its policy goals.
For example, in Hattie, Wisconsin statutory law regulating the municipal provision of sewage services expressly permitted cities to limit their service to surrounding unincorporated areas. See 471 U. S., at 41. While unincorporated towns alleged that the city’s exercise of that power constituted an unlawful tying arrangement, an unlawful refusal to deal, and an abuse of monopoly power, we had no trouble concluding that these alleged anticompetitive effects were affirmatively contemplated by the State because it was “clear” that they “logically would result” from the grant of authority. Id., at 42. As described by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the state legislature “ Viewed annexation by the city of a surrounding unincorporated area as a reasonable quid pro quo that a city could require before extending sewer services to the area.’” Id., at 44-45, n. 8 (quoting Hallie v. Chippewa Falls, 105 Wis. 2d 533, 540-541, 314 N. W. 2d 321, 325 (1982)). Without immunity, federal antitrust law could have undermined that arrangement and taken completely off the table the policy option that the State clearly intended for cities to have.
Similarly, in Omni, where the respondents alleged that the city had used its zoning power to protect an incumbent billboard provider against competition, we found that the clear-articulation test was easily satisfied even though the state statutes delegating zoning authority to the city did not explicitly permit the suppression of competition. We explained that “[t]he very purpose of zoning regulation is to displace unfettered business freedom in a manner that regularly has the effect of preventing normal acts of competition” and that a zoning ordinance regulating the size, location, and spacing of billboards “necessarily protects existing billboards against some competition from newcomers.” 499 U. S., at 373. Other cases in which we have found a “clear articulation” of the State’s intent to displace competition without an explicit statement have also involved authorizations to act or regulate in ways that were inherently anticompetitive.
By contrast, “simple permission to play in a market” does not “foreseeably entail permission to roughhouse in that market unlawfully.” Kay Elec. Cooperative v. Newkirk, 647 F. 3d 1039, 1043 (CA10 2011). When a State grants some entity general power to act, whether it is a private corporation or a public entity like the Authority, it does so against the backdrop of federal antitrust law. See Ticor Title, 504 U. S., at 632. Of course, both private parties and local governmental entities conceivably may transgress antitrust requirements by exercising their general powers in anti-competitive ways. But a reasonable legislature’s ability to anticipate that (potentially undesirable) possibility falls well short of clearly articulating an affirmative state policy to displace competition with a regulatory alternative.
Believing that this case falls within the scope of the foreseeability standard applied in Hallie and Omni, the Court of Appeals stated that “[i]t defies imagination to suppose the [state] legislature could have believed that every geographic market in Georgia was so replete with hospitals that authorizing acquisitions by the authorities could have no serious anticompetitive consequences.” 663 F. 3d, at 1377. Respondents echo this argument, noting that each of Georgia’s 159 counties covers a small geographical area and that most of them are sparsely populated, with nearly three-quarters having fewer than 50,000 residents as of the 2010 Census. Brief for Respondents 46.
Even accepting, arguendo, the premise that facts about a market could make the anticompetitive use of general corporate powers “foreseeable,” we reject the Court of Appeals’ and respondents’ conclusion because only a relatively small subset of the conduct permitted as a matter of state law by Ga. Code Ann. §31-7-75(4) has the potential to negatively affect competition. Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ and respondents’ characterization, § 31-7-76(4) is not principally concerned with hospital authorities’ ability to acquire multiple hospitals and consolidate their operations. Section 31-7-75(4) allows authorities to acquire “projects,” which includes not only “hospitals,” but also “health care facilities, dormitories, office buildings, clinics, housing accommodations, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, extended care facilities, and other public health facilities.” §31-7-71(5). Narrowing our focus to the market for hospital services, the power to acquire hospitals still does not ordinarily produce anticompetitive effects. Section 31-7-75(4) was, after all, the source of power for newly formed hospital authorities to acquire a hospital in the first instance—a transaction that was unlikely to raise any antitrust concerns even in small markets because the transfer of ownership from private to public hands does not increase market concentration. See 1A Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶224e(c), at 126 (“[Substitution of one monopolist for another is not an antitrust violation”). While subsequent acquisitions by authorities have the potential to reduce competition, they will raise federal antitrust concerns only in markets that are large enough to support more than one hospital but sufficiently small that the merger of competitors would lead to a significant increase in market concentration. This is too slender a reed to support the Court of Appeals’ and respondents’ inference.
IV
A
Taking a somewhat different approach than the Court of Appeals, respondents insist that the Law should not be read as a mere authorization for hospital authorities to participate in the hospital-services market and exercise general corporate powers. Rather, they contend that hospital authorities are granted unique powers and responsibilities to fulfill the State’s objective of providing all residents with access to adequate and affordable health and hospital care. See, e.g., Ga. Code Ann. §31-7-75(22). Respondents argue that in view of hospital authorities’ statutory objective, their specific attributes, and the regulatory context in which they operate, it was foreseeable that authorities facing capacity constraints would decide they could best serve their communities’ needs by acquiring an existing local hospital rather than incur the additional expense and regulatory burden of expanding a facility or constructing a new one. See Brief for Respondents 33-39.
In support of this argument, respondents observe that hospital authorities are simultaneously empowered to act in ways private entities cannot while also being subject to significant regulatory constraints. On the power side, as the Court of Appeals noted, 663 F. 3d, at 1376-1377, hospital authorities may acquire through eminent domain property that is “essential to the [authority’s] purposes.” § 31-7-75(12). On the restraint side, hospital authorities are managed by a publicly accountable board, §§31-7-74.1, 31-7-76; they must operate on a nonprofit basis, §31-7-77; and they may only lease a project for others to operate after determining that doing so will promote the community’s public health needs and that the lessee will not receive more than a reasonable rate of return on its investment, §31-7-75(7). Moreover, hospital authorities operate within a broader regulatory context in which Georgia requires any party seeking to establish or significantly expand certain medical facilities, including hospitals, to obtain a certificate of need from state regulators. See §31-6-40 et seq.
We have no doubt that Georgia’s hospital authorities differ materially from private corporations that offer hospital services. But nothing in the Law or any other provision of Georgia law clearly articulates a state policy to allow authorities to exercise their general corporate powers, including their acquisition power, without regard to negative effects on competition. The state legislature’s objective of improving access to affordable health care does not logically suggest that the State intended that hospital authorities pursue that end through mergers that create monopolies. Nor do the restrictions imposed on hospital authorities, including the requirement that they operate on a nonprofit basis, reveal such a policy. Particularly in light of our national policy favoring competition, these restrictions should be read to reflect more modest aims. The legislature may have viewed profit generation as incompatible with its goal of providing care for the indigent sick. In addition, the legislature may have believed that some hospital authorities would operate in markets with characteristics of natural monopolies, in which case the legislature could not rely on competition to control prices. See Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co., 428 U. S. 579, 595-596 (1976).
We recognize that Georgia, particularly through its certificate of need requirement, does limit competition in the market for hospital services in some respects. But regulation of an industry, and even the authorization of discrete forms of anticompetitive conduct pursuant to a regulatory structure, does not establish that the State has affirmatively contemplated other forms of anticompetitive conduct that are only tangentially related. Thus, in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773 (1975), we rejected a state-action defense to price-fixing claims where a state bar adopted a compulsory minimum fee schedule. Although the State heavily regulated the practice of law, we found no evidence that it had adopted a policy to displace price competition among lawyers. Id., at 788-792. And in Cantor, we concluded that a state commission’s regulation of rates for electricity charged by a public utility did not confer state-action immunity for a claim that the utility’s free distribution of light bulbs restrained trade in the light-bulb market. 428 U. S., at 596.
In this case, the fact that Georgia imposes limits on entry into the market for medical services, which apply to both hospital authorities and private corporations, does not clearly articulate a policy favoring the consolidation of existing hospitals that are engaged in active competition. Accord, FTC v. University Health, Inc., 938 F. 2d 1206, 1213, n. 13 (CA11 1991). As to the Authority’s eminent domain power, it was not exercised here and we do not find it relevant to the question whether the State authorized hospital authorities to consolidate market power through potentially anticompetitive acquisitions of existing hospitals.
B
Finally, respondents contend that to the extent there is any doubt about whether the clear-articulation test is satisfied in this context, federal courts should err on the side of recognizing immunity to avoid improper interference with state policy choices. See Brief for Respondents 43-44. But we do not find the Law ambiguous on the question whether it clearly articulates a policy authorizing anticom-petitive acquisitions; it does not.
More fundamentally, respondents’ suggestion is inconsistent with the principle that “state-action immunity is disfavored.” Ticor Title, 504 U. S., at 636. Parker and its progeny are premised on an understanding that respect for the States’ coordinate role in government counsels against reading the federal antitrust laws to restrict the States’ sovereign capacity to regulate their economies and provide services to their citizens. But federalism and state sovereignty are poorly served by a rule of construction that would allow “essential national policies” embodied in the antitrust laws to be displaced by state delegations of authority “intended to achieve more limited ends.” 504 U. S., at 636. As an amici brief filed by 20 States in support of the FTC contends, loose application of the clear-artieulation test would attach significant unintended consequences to States’ frequent delegations of corporate authority to local bodies, effectively requiring States to disclaim any intent to displace competition to avoid inadvertently authorizing anticompeti-tive conduct. Brief for State of Illinois et al. 12-17; see also Surgical Care Center of Hammond, L. C. v. Hospital Serv. Dist. No. 1, 171 F. 3d 231, 236 (CA5 1999) (en banc). We decline to set such a trap for unwary state legislatures.
* * *
We hold that Georgia has not clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed a policy to allow hospital authorities to make acquisitions that substantially lessen competition. 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.
Georgia did not join the notice of appeal filed by the FTC and is no longer a party in the case.
In tension with the Court of Appeals’ decision, other Circuits have held in analogous circumstances that substate governmental entities exercising general corporate powers were not entitled to state-action immunity. See Kay Elec. Cooperative v. Newkirk, 647 P. 3d 1039, 1043, 1045-1047 (CA10 2011); First Am. Title Co. v. Devaugh, 480 P. 3d 438, 456-457 (CA6 2007); Surgical Care Center of Hammond, L. C. v. Hospital Serv. Dist. No. 1, 171F. 3d 231, 235-236 (CA5 1999) (en banc); Lancaster Community Hospital v. Antelope Valley Hospital Dist., 940 P. 2d 397, 402-403 (CA9 1991).
After issuing'its decision, the Court of Appeals dissolved the temporary injunction that it had granted pending appeal and the transaction closed. The case is not moot, however, because the District Court on remand could enjoin respondents from taking actions that would disturb the status quo and impede a final remedial decree. See Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U. S. 298, 307 (2012) (“A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also FTC v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 548 F. 3d 1028, 1033-1034 (CADC 2008) (opinion of Brown, J.) (rejecting a mootness argument in a similar posture).
An amicus curiae contends that we should recognize and apply a “market participant” exception to state-action immunity because Georgia’s hospital authorities engage in proprietary activities. Brief for National Federation of Independent Business 6-24; see also Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U. S. 365, 374-375, 379 (1991) (leaving open the possibility of a market participant exception). Because this argument was not raised by the parties or passed on by the lower courts, we do not consider it. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U. S. 56, 60, n. 2 (1981).
The Eleventh Circuit has held that while Georgia’s hospital authorities are “unique entities” that lie “somewhere between a local, general-purpose governing body (such as a city or county) and a corporation,” they qualify as “an instrumentality, agency, or ‘political subdivision’ of Georgia for purposes of state action immunity.” Crosby v. Hospital Auth. of Valdosta & Lowndes Cty., 93 F. 3d 1515, 1524-1526 (1996). The FTC has not challenged that characterization of Georgia’s hospital authorities, and we accordingly operate from the assumption that hospital authorities are akin to political subdivisions.
Compare Ga. Code Ann. §§ 31-7-75(4), (7) (2012) (authorizing hospital authorities to acquire projects and enter lease agreements) with § 14-2-302 (outlining general powers of private corporations in Georgia, which include the ability to acquire and lease property), § 14-2-1101 (allowing corporate mergers), and §§ 14-2-1201,14-2-1202 (allowing sales of corporate assets to other corporations).
See Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U. S. 48, 64, 66, and n. 25 (1985) (finding that a state commission’s decision to encourage collective ratemaking by common carriers was entitled to state-action immunity where the legislature had left “[t]he details of the inherently anticompetitive rate-setting process... to the agency’s discretion”); Hallie v. Eau Claire, 471 U. S. 34, 42 (1985) (describing New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 439 U. S. 96 (1978), as a case where there was not an “express intent to displace the antitrust laws” but where the regulatory structure at issue restricting the establishment or relocation of automobile dealerships “inherently displaced unfettered business freedom” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).
The Court of Appeals also invoked Ga. Code Ann. §31-7-84, which provides that hospital authorities do not have the power to assess taxes, but allows the applicable governing body in the authority’s area of operation to impose taxes to cover the authority’s expenses. See 663 F. 3d, at 1377. This provision applies in cases in which the county or municipality has entered into a contract with a hospital authority for the use of its facilities. See §§31-7-84(a), 31-7-85. No such contract exists in this case, and respondents have not relied on this provision in briefing or argument before us.
Georgia first adopted certificate of need legislation in 1978 in part to comply with a since-repealed federal law conditioning federal funding for a number of health care programs on a State’s enactment of certificate of need laws. See 1978 Ga. Laws p. 941, as amended, Ga. Code Ann. §31-6-40 et seq. (2012); see also National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 2246, repealed by § 701(a), 100 Stat. 3799.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A federal habeas court will not review a claim rejected by a state court “if the decision of [the state] court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 729 (1991). We granted certiorari to decide the following question: “Is a state procedural rule automatically ‘inadequate’ under the adequate-state-grounds doctrine — and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas corpus review — because the state rule is discretionary rather than mandatory?” Pet. for Cert. i. Petitioners argue the correct answer is “no.” At oral argument, respondent — consistent with his position below — expressly agreed. We do too, and accordingly vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
In 1982, Joseph Kindler, along with Scott Shaw and David Bernstein, burglarized a music store in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Police stopped the getaway car and arrested Shaw and Bernstein. In a harbinger of things to come, Kindler escaped. Commonwealth v. Kindler, 536 Pa. 228, 236, 639 A. 2d 1, 5, cert. denied, 513 U. S. 933 (1994).
Police later arrested Kindler and charged him with burglary. He was released on bail. Bernstein agreed to testify against Kindler, but Kindler had other plans. At about 2:30 a.m. on July 25, 1982, Kindler and Shaw attacked Bernstein outside his apartment. Kindler beat Bernstein with a baseball bat approximately 20 times, and Shaw shocked Bernstein 5 times with an electric prod. Bernstein at that point was still alive but unable to move, and Kindler and Shaw dragged their victim to their nearby car, loaded him in the trunk, and drove to the Delaware River. At the river, Kindler tied a cinder block around Bernstein’s neck and dumped him in the water. A forensic examiner later determined that Bernstein died of drowning and massive head injuries. 536 Pa., at 236-239, 639 A. 2d, at 5-6.
Kindler was brought to trial and convicted of capital murder. The jury recommended a death sentence, and Kindler filed postverdict motions. Id., at 230-231, 639 A. 2d, at 2.
But on September 19, 1984, before the trial court could consider the motions or the jury’s death recommendation, Kindler escaped. Ibid. In an organized effort to saw through the external prison bars with smuggled tools, Kindler broke out of the maximum-security wing of the prison and headed for Canada. See Commonwealth v. Kindler, 554 Pa. 513, 517-518, and n. 4, 722 A. 2d 143, 145, and n. 4 (1998).
Kindler remained a fugitive in Canada until April 26,1985, when he was arrested in Quebec for separate burglary offenses. The United States sought Kindler’s return, but an extradition treaty allowed Canada to refuse to hand over anyone likely to face execution. See Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S. C. R. 779, 84 D. L. R. (4th) 438.
Kindler turned into something of a local celebrity. He even appeared on Canadian television, explaining, among other things, how he had escaped and why he chose Canada: “I knew there was no death penalty here.” CTV National News: Joseph Kindler’s Fate Unresolved (Canadian television broadcast Sept. 22, 1985) (videos available in Clerk of Court’s ease file). Canadian authorities ultimately acquiesced to overtures from the United States and agreed to extradite Kindler. Kindler, 536 Pa., at 231, 639 A. 2d, at 2.
But before Kindler could be transferred from Canadian custody, he escaped again. On the night of October 23, 1986, Kindler broke through a skylight on the 13th floor of the jail (his fellow inmates had hoisted him up to the skylight 15 feet above the floor) and escaped to the roof, where he stood 175 feet above ground. Armed with 13 stories’ worth of bedsheets tied together, Kindler safely rappelled down the side of the jail. (A fellow escapee was not as lucky — the sheets ripped on his way down, causing him to fall 50 feet to his death.) Kindler, 554 Pa., at 517-519, 722 A. 2d, at 145.
This time, Kindler remained on the lam for nearly two years, until he was featured on the popular television show, “America’s Most Wanted.” Characterizing Kindler as “an above average criminal” and “a chess player who understands when to make his move,” the show asked viewers for information to help capture him. America’s Most Wanted, Sept. 4, 1988, Season 1, Episode 30, at 10:01. Several viewers recognized Kindler and notified Canadian authorities, who arrested him in September 1988. 554 Pa., at 519, 722 A. 2d, at 145.
Kindler again fought extradition. On September 16,1991, after three years of litigation, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected Kindler’s efforts. See Kindler, [1991] 2 S. C. R. 779, 84 D. L. R. (4th) 438. That same day, Canadian officials extradited Kindler to the United States. Kindler v. Horn, 291 F. Supp. 2d 323, 334 (ED Pa. 2003).
In the meantime, in 1984, the Pennsylvania trial court had dismissed Kindler’s postverdict motions because of his original escape. Once back in the United States, Kindler filed a motion to reinstate those challenges to his conviction and sentence. The trial court denied the reinstatement motion, holding that the trial court judge who had dismissed the postverdict motions in 1984 had not abused his discretion. In October 1991 — more than seven years after the jury’s death recommendation — the court formally imposed the death sentence. Commonwealth v. Kindler, No. 2747 etc. (Ct. Common Pleas, Feb. 28, 1992), App. 66-70.
Kindler appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to address the merits of his postverdict motions. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed. Kindler, 536 Pa., at 232-234, 639 A. 2d, at 3. That court recognized that “trial courts, when faced with a defendant in fugitive status, . . . have every right to fashion an appropriate response[,] which can include the dismissal of pending post-verdict motions.” Id., at 233, 639 A. 2d, at 3. The court then determined that the trial court’s decision to dismiss Kindler’s claims fell within its authority: The “dismiss[al] [of] the post-verdict motions was a reasonable response to Appellant’s 'flouting’ of the authority of the court.” Id., at 233-234, 639 A. 2d, at 3. Under Pennsylvania’s fugitive forfeiture law, the court concluded, Kindler’s case therefore came to it “without any allegations of error (direct or collateral) preserved.” Id., at 234, 639 A. 2d, at 4.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court nonetheless conducted the “limited review” mandated for death sentences under Pennsylvania law. Under that review, the court was required to confirm that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of first-degree murder and at least one aggravating factor, and that the sentence was not excessive, disproportionate, or the product of passion or prejudice. Id., at 234-235, 639 A. 2d, at 4. Satisfied that Kindler’s conviction met these standards, the court affirmed his conviction and sentence. We denied certiorari. Kindler v. Pennsylvania, 513 U. S. 933 (1994).
On state habeas, the Court of Common Pleas rejected Kindler’s claims. That court held that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had already ruled that Kindler’s escape forfeited all claims challenging his conviction and sentence that Kindler may once have been entitled to bring. Commonwealth v. Kindler, No. 2747 etc. (July 23, 1997), App. 183, 187-188. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed. Kindler, 554 Pa., at 514, 722 A. 2d, at 143.
Kindler then sought federal habeas relief. The District Court determined that the fugitive forfeiture rule did not provide an adequate basis to bar federal review of Kindler’s habeas claims. 291 F. Supp. 2d, at 340-343. The District Court then proceeded to address the merits, granting Kindler’s petition on the grounds that he was sentenced based on jury instructions that were unconstitutional under Mills v. Maryland, 486 U. S. 367 (1988), and that the prosecutor improperly introduced an aggravating factor at sentencing. 291 F. Supp. 2d, at 346-351, 357-358. The court rejected Kindler’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Id., at 356.
The Third Circuit affirmed. That court began by recognizing that “[a] procedural rule that is consistently applied in the vast majority of cases is adequate to bar federal habeas review even if state courts are willing to occasionally overlook it and review the merits of a claim for relief where the rule would otherwise apply.” Kindler v. Horn, 542 F. 3d 70, 79 (2008). The Court of Appeals then considered the Pennsylvania fugitive forfeiture rule in place at the time of Kindler’s first escape: “Pennsylvania courts had discretion to hear an appeal filed by a fugitive who had been returned to custody before an appeal was initiated or dismissed. . . . Accordingly, the fugitive forfeiture rule was not 'firmly established’ and therefore was not an independent and adequate procedural rule sufficient to bar review of the merits of a habeas petitio[n] in federal court.” Ibid, (citing Doctor v. Walters, 96 F. 3d 675, 684-686 (CA3 1996)). The court thus determined that “the state trial court still had discretion to reinstate his post-verdict motions. Accordingly, we conclude that, under Doctor, Pennsylvania’s fugitive waiver law did not preclude the district court from reviewing the merits of the claims raised in Kindler’s habeas petition.” 542 F. 3d, at 80. Turning to the merits, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court on the improper aggravating factor claim, but held that Kindler was entitled to relief based on his Mills and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 542 F. 3d, at 80-87.
The Commonwealth petitioned for certiorari, arguing that the Court of Appeals’ determination that state discretionary rules are automatically inadequate conflicted, with the holdings of other Courts of Appeals and warranted this Court’s review. Pet. for Cert. 6-11. Kindler countered that the Commonwealth had miseharacterized the Third Circuit’s holding. Relying on the court’s citation of the Doctor opinion, Kindler argued that the Third Circuit did not hold that discretionary state rules are automatically inadequate; rather the court determined that the state courts applied “a new and different rule from that in existence at the time of the alleged default.” Brief in Opposition 3. It was that new rule, Kindler maintained, that the Third Circuit found inadequate. Ibid.
We granted the Commonwealth’s petition for certiorari. 556 U. S. 1234 (2009). That petition asks us to decide whether discretionary procedural rulings are automatically inadequate to bar federal court review on habeas.
II
The question whether a state procedural ruling is adequate is itself a question of federal law. Lee v. Kemna, 534 U. S. 362, 375 (2002). We have framed the adequacy inquiry by asking whether the state rule in question was “ ‘firmly established and regularly followed.’” Id., at 376 (quoting James v. Kentucky, 466 U. S. 341, 348 (1984)).
We hold that a discretionary state procedural rule can serve as an adequate ground to bar federal habeas review. Nothing inherent in such a rule renders it inadequate for purposes of the adequate state ground doctrine. To the contrary, a discretionary rule can be “firmly established” and “regularly followed” — even if the appropriate exercise of discretion may permit consideration of a federal claim in some cases but not others. See Meltzer, State Court Forfeitures of Federal Rights, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 1128, 1140 (1986) (“[R]efusals to exercise discretion do not form an important independent category under the inadequate state ground doctrine”).
A contrary holding would pose an unnecessary dilemma for the States: States could preserve flexibility by granting courts discretion to excuse procedural errors, but only at the cost of undermining the finality of state court judgments. Or States could preserve the finality of their judgments by withholding such discretion, but only at the cost of precluding any flexibility in applying the rules.
We are told that, if forced to choose, many States would opt for mandatory rules to avoid the high costs that come with plenary federal review. See, e. g., Brief for State of California et al. as Amici Curiae 19; Brief for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae 14. That would be unfortunate in many cases, as discretionary rules are often desirable. In some circumstances, for example, the factors facing trial courts “are so numerous, variable and subtle that the fashioning of rigid rules would be more likely to impair [the trial judge’s] ability to deal fairly with a particular problem than to lead to a just result.” United States v. McCoy, 517 F. 2d 41, 44 (CA7) (Stevens, J.), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 895 (1975); see also Friendly, Indiscretion About Discretion, 31 Emory L. J. 747, 760-761 (1982). The result would be particularly unfortunate for criminal defendants, who would lose the opportunity to argue that a procedural default should be excused through the exercise of judicial discretion. See Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U. S. 443, 463, n. 3 (1965) (Harlan, J., dissenting) (“If, in order to insulate its decisions from reversal by this Court, a state court must strip itself of the discretionary power to differentiate between different sets of circumstances, the [adequate state ground] rule operates in a most perverse way”).
It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that the federal system often grants broad discretion to the trial judge when his ringside perspective at the “‘main event’” offers him a comparative advantage in decisionmaking. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 90 (1977); cf. United States v. Poynter, 495 F. 3d 349, 351-352 (CA6 2007). The States seem to value discretionary rules as much as the Federal Government does. See Brief for State of California et al. as Amici Curiae 16-17 (citing various state discretionary procedural rules). In light of the federalism and comity concerns that motivate the adequate state ground doctrine in the habeas context, see Coleman, 501 U. S., at 730, it would seem particularly strange to disregard state procedural rules that are substantially similar to those to which we give full force in our own courts. Cf. Francis v. Henderson, 425 U. S. 536, 541-542 (1976). Even stranger to do so with respect to rules in place in nearly every State, and all at one fell swoop.
We take our holding in this case to be uncontroversial — so uncontroversial, in fact, that both parties agreed to the point before this Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29-31. Rather than defending the question on which we granted certiorari— whether discretionary rules are automatically inadequate— Kindler argues that the Pennsylvania courts did not apply a discretionary rule at all, but instead applied a new rule mandating dismissal. Such a mandatory dismissal, Kindler contends, constituted a break from past discretionary practice, and thus does not provide an adequate state ground to bar his federal claims. We leave it to the Court of Appeals to address that argument, and any others Kindler may have preserved, on remand.
For its part, the Commonwealth urges us not only to reject a per se rule about discretionary rulings, but also to undertake “[a] new effort to state a standard for inadequacy.” Brief for Petitioners 25. Amici supporting the Commonwealth join in that request. See Brief for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae 6-10. We decline that invitation as well. The procedural default at issue here— escape from prison — is hardly a typical procedural default, making this case an unsuitable vehicle for providing broad guidance on the adequate state ground doctrine.
If our holding in this case is narrow, it is because the question we granted certiorari to decide is narrow. Answering that question is sufficient unto the day.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mb. Justice White
delivered the opinion of^ej3©trr-tr''
Appellants, approximately 64 in number, are members of the faculty, staff and student body of the University of Washington who brought this class action asking for a judgment declaring unconstitutional two Washington statutes requiring the execution of two different oaths by state employees and for an injunction against the enforcement of these statutes by appellees, the President of the University, members of the Washington State Board of Regents and the State Attorney General.
The statutes under attack are Chapter 377, Laws of 1955, and Chapter 103, Laws of 1931, both of which require employees of the State of Washington to take the oaths prescribed in the statutes as a condition of their employment. The 1931 legislation applies only to teachers, who, upon applying for a license to teach or renewing an existing contract, are required to subscribe to the following:
“I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution and laws of the United States of America and of the State of Washington, and will by precept and example promote respect for the flag and the institutions of the United States of America and the State of Washington, reverence for law and order and undivided allegiance to the government of the United States.” Wash. Laws 1931, c. 103.
The oath requirements of the 1955 Act, Wash. Laws 1955, c. 377, applicable to all state employees, incorporate various provisions of the Washington Subversive Activities Act of 1951, which provides generally that “[n]o subversive person, as defined in this act, shall be eligible for employment in, or appointment to any office, or any position of trust or profit in the government, or in the administration of the business, of this state, or of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state.” Wash. Rev. Code § 9.81.060. The term “subversive person” is defined as follows:
“ ‘Subversive person’ means any person who commits, attempts to commit, or aids in the commission, or advocates, abets, advises or teaches by any means any person to commit, attempt to commit, or aid in the commission of any act intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of the United States, or of the state of Washington, or any political subdivision of either of them by revolution, force, or violence; or who with knowledge that the organization is an organization as described in subsections (2) and (3) hereof, becomes or remains a member of a subversive organization or a foreign subversive organization.” Wash. Rev. Code § 9.81.010 (5).
The Act goes on to define at similar length and in similar terms “subversive organization” and “foreign subversive organization” and to declare the Communist Party a subversive organization and membership therein a subversive activity.
On May 28, 1962, some four months after this Court’s dismissal of the appeal irf Nostrand v. Little, 368 U. S. 436, also a challenge to the 1955 oath, the University President, acting pursuant to directions of the Board of Regents, issued a memorandum to all University employees notifying them that they would be required to take an oath. Oath Form A requires all teaching personnel to swear to the oath of allegiance set out above, to aver that they have read, are familiar with and understand the provisions defining “subversive person” in the Subversive Activities Act of 1951 and to disclaim being a subversive person and membership in the Communist Party or any other subversive or foreign subversive organization. Oath Form B requires other state employees to subscribe to all of the above provisions except the 1931 oath. Both forms provide that the oath and statements pertinent thereto are made subject to the penalties of perjury.
Pursuant, to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284, a three-judge District Courfi-was convened and a trial was had. That court determined that the 1955 oath and underlying statutory provisions did not infringe upon any First and Fourteenth Amendment'freedoms and..were not unduly vague. In respect to the claim that the 1931 oath was unconstitutionally vague on its face,'the court held that although the challenge raised a substantial constitutional issue, adjudication was not proper in the absence of proceedings in the state courts which might resolve or avoid the constitutional issue. The action was dismissed. 215 F. Supp. 439. We noted probable jurisdiction because of-the public importance of this type of legislation and the recurring serious constitutional questions which it presents. 375 U. S. 808. We reverse.
I.
Appellants contend in this Court that the oath requirements and the statutory provisions on which they are based are invalid on their face because their language is unduly vague, uncertain and broad. We agree with this contention and therefore, without reaching the numerous other contentions pressed upon us, confine our considerations to that particular question.
In Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U. S. 278, the Court invalidated an oath requiring teachers and other employees of the State to swear that they had never lent their “aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party” because the oath was lacking in “terms susceptible of objective measurement” and failed to inform as to what the State commanded or forbade. The statute therefore fell within the compass of those decisions of the Court holding that a law forbidding or requiring conduct in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates due process of law. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385; Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451; Joseph Burstyn, Inc., v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495; United States v. Cardiff, 344 U. S. 174; Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 286 U. S. 210.
The oath required by the 1955 statute suffers from similar infirmities. A teacher must swear that he is not a subversive person: that he is not one who commits an act or who advises, teaches, abets or advocates by any means another person to commit or aid in the commission of any act intended to overthrow or alter, or to assist the overthrow or alteration, of the constitutional form of government by revolution, force or violence. A subversive organization is defined as one which engages in or assists activities intended to alter or overthrow the Government by force or violence or which has as a purpose the commission of such acts. The Communist Party is declared in the statute to be a subversive organization, that is, it is presumed that the Party does and will engage in activities intended to overthrow the Government. Persons required to swear they understand this oath may quite reasonably conclude that any person who aids the Communist Party or teaches or advises known members of the Party is a subversive person because such teaching or advice may now or at some future date aid the activities of the Party. Teaching and advising are clearly acts, and one cannot confidently assert that his counsel, aid, influence or support which adds to the resources, rights and knowledge of the Communist Party or its members does not aid the Party in its activities, activities which the statute tells us are all in furtherance of the stated purpose of overthrowing the Government by revolution, force, or violence. The questions put by the Court in Cramp may with equal force be asked here. Does the statute reach endorsement or support for Communist candidates for office? Does it reach a lawyer who represents the Communist Party or its members or a journalist who defends constitutional rights of the Communist Party or its members or anyone who supports any cause which is likewise supported by Communists or.the Communist Party? The susceptibility of the statutory language to require forswearing of an undefined variety of “guiltless knowing behavior” is what the Court condemned in Cramp. This statute, like the one at issue in Cramp, is unconstitutionally vague.
The Washington statute suffers from additional difficulties on vagueness grounds. A person is subversive not only if he himself commits the specified acts but if he abets or advises another in aiding a third person to commit an act which will assist yet a fourth person in the overthrow or alteration of constitutional government. The Washington Supreme Court has said that knowledge is to be read into every provision and we accept this construction. Nostrand v. Balmer, 53 Wash. 2d 460, 483-484, 335 P. 2d 10, 24; Nostrand v. Little, 58 Wash. 2d 111, 123-124, 361 P. 2d 551, 559. But what is it that the Washington professor must "know”? Must he know that his aid or teaching will be used by another and that the person aided has the requisite guilty intent or is it sufficient that he know that his aid or teaching would or might be useful to others in the commission of acts intended to overthrow the Government? Is it subversive activity, for example, to attend and participate in international conventions of mathematicians and exchange views with scholars from Communist countries? What about the editor of a scholarly journal who analyzes and criticizes the manuscripts of Communist scholars submitted for publication? Is selecting outstanding scholars from Communist countries as visiting professors and advising, teaching, or consulting with them at the University of Washington a subversive activity if such scholars are known to be Communists, or regardless of their affiliations, regularly teach students who are members of the Communist Party, which by statutory definition is subversive and dedicated to the overthrow of the Government?
The Washington oath goes beyond overthrow or alteration by force or violence. It extends to alteration by “revolution” which, unless wholly redundant and its ordinary meaning distorted, includes any rapid or fundamental change. Would, therefore, any organization or any person supporting, advocating or teaching peaceful but far-reaching constitutional amendments be engaged in subversive, activity? Could one support the repeal of the Twenty-second Amendment or participation by this country in a world government?
II.
We also conclude that the 1931 oath offends due process because of vagueness. The oath exacts a promise that the affiant will, by precept and example, promote respect for the flag and the institutions of the United States and the State of Washington. The range of activities which are or might be deemed inconsistent with the required promise is very wide indeed. The teacher who refused to salute the flag or advocated refusal because of religious beliefs might well be accused of breaching his promise. Cf. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624. Even criticism of the design or color scheme of the state flag or unfavorable comparison of it with that of a sister State or foreign country could be deemed disrespectful and therefore violative of the oath. And what are “institutions” for the purposes of this oath? Is it every “practice, law, custom, etc., which is a material and persistent element in the life or culture of an organized social group” or every “established society or corporation,” every “establishment, especially] one of a public character”? The oath may prevent a professor from criticizing his state judicial system or the Supreme Court or the institution of judicial review. Or it might be deemed to proscribe advocating the abolition, for example, of the Civil Rights Commission, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, or foreign aid.
It is likewise difficult to ascertain what might be done without transgressing the promise to “promote... undivided allegiance to the government of the United States.” It would not be unreasonable for the serious-minded oathtaker to conclude that he should dispense with lectures voicing far-reaching criticism of any old or new policy followed by the Government of the United States. He could find it questionable under this language to ally himself with any interest group dedicated to opposing any current public policy or law of the Federal Government, for if he did, he might well be accused of placing loyalty to the group above allegiance to the United States.
Indulging every presumption of a narrow construction of the provisions of the 1931 oath, consistent, however, with a proper respect for the English language, we cannot say that this oath provides an ascertainable standard of conduct or that it does not require more than a State may command under the guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
As in Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, “[t]he vice of unconstitutional vagueness is further aggravated where, as here, the statute in question operates to inhibit the exercise of individual freedoms affirmatively protected by the Constitution.” 368 U. S. 278, 287. We are dealing with indefinite statutes whose terms, even narrowly construed, abut upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms. The uncertain meanings of the oaths require the oath-taker — teachers and public servants — to “steer far wider of the unlawful zone,” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526, than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked. Those with a conscientious regard for what they solemnly swear or affirm, sensitive to the perils posed by the oath’s indefinite language, avoid the risk of loss of employment, and perhaps profession, only by restricting their conduct to that which is unquestionably safe. Free speech may not be so inhibited. Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369. See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88; and Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507.
1 — 1 h-[ h-i
The State labels as wholly fanciful the suggested possible coverage of the two oaths. It may well be correct, but the contention only emphasizes the difficulties with the two statutes; for if the oaths do not reach some or any of the behavior suggested, what specific conduct do the oaths cover? Where does fanciful possibility end and intended coverage begin?
It will not do to say that a prosecutor's sense of fairness and the Constitution would prevent a successful perjury prosecution for some of the activities seemingly embraced within the sweeping statutory definitions. The hazard of being prosecuted for knowing but guiltless behavior nevertheless remains. “It would be blinking reality not to acknowledge that there are some among us always ready to affix a Communist label upon those whose ideas they violently oppose. And experience teaches us that prosecutors too are human.” Cramp, supra, at 286-287. Well-intentioned prosecutors and judicial safeguards do not neutralize the vice of a vague law. Nor should we encourage the casual taking of oaths by upholding the discharge or exclusion from public employment of those with a conscientious and scrupulous regard for such undertakings.
It is further argued, however, that, notwithstanding the uncertainties of the 1931 oath and the statute on which it is based, the oath does not offend due process because the vagaries are contained in a promise of future conduct, the breach of which would not support a conviction for perjury. Without the criminal sanctions, it is said, one need not fear taking this oath, regardless of whether he understands it and can comply with its mandate, however understood. This contention ignores not only the effect of the oath on those who will not solemnly swear unless they can do so honestly and without prevarication and reservation, but also its effect on those who believe the written law means what it says. Oath Form A contains both oaths, and expressly requires that the signer “understand that this statement and oath are made subject to the penalties of perjury.” Moreover, Wash. Rev. Code §9.72.030 provides that “[e]very person who, whether orally or in writing... shall knowingly swear falsely concerning any matter whatsoever” commits perjury in the second degree. Even if it can be said that a conviction for falsely taking this oath would not be sustained, the possibility of a prosecution cannot be gainsaid. The State may not require one to choose between subscribing to an unduly vague and broad oath, thereby incurring the likelihood of prosecution, and conscientiously refusing to take the oath with the consequent loss of employment, and perhaps profession, particularly where “the free dissemination of ideas may be the loser.” Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 151. “It is not the penalty itself that is invalid but the exaction of obedience to a rule or standard that is so vague and indefinite as to be really no rule or standard at all.” Champlin Refg. Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 286 U. S. 210, 243; cf. Small Co. v. American Refg. Co., 267 U. S. 233.
IV.
We are asked not to examine the 1931 oath statute because, although on the books for over three decades, it has never been interpreted by the Washington courts. The argument is that ever since Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, the Court on many occasions has ordered abstention where state tribunals were thought to be more appropriate for resolution of complex or unsettled questions of local law. A. F. L. v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582; Spector Motor Service v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101; Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167. Because this Court ordinarily accepts the construction given a state statute in the local courts and also presumes that the statute will be construed in such a way as to avoid the constitutional question presented, Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273; Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395, an interpretation of the 1931 oath in the Washington courts in light of the vagueness attack may eliminate the necessity of deciding this issue.
We are not persuaded. The abstention doctrine is not an automatic rule applied whenever a federal court is faced with a doubtful issue of state law; it rather involves a discretionary exercise of a court’s equity powers. Ascertainment of whether there exist the “special circumstances,” Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, prerequisite to its application must be made on a case-by-case basis. Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 500; NAACP v. Bennett, 360 U. S. 471. Those special circumstances are not present here. We doubt, in the first place, that a construction of the oath provisions, in light of the vagueness challenge, would avoid or fundamentally alter the constitutional issue raised in this litigation. See Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 357 U. S. 77. In the bulk of abstention cases in this Court, including those few cases where vagueness was at issue, the unsettled issue of state law principally concerned the applicability of the challenged statute to a certain person or a defined course of conduct, whose resolution in a particular manner would eliminate the constitutional issue and terminate the litigation. Here the uncertain issue of state law does not turn upon a choice between one or several alternative meanings of a state statute. The challenged oath is not open to one or a few interpretations, but to an indefinite number. There is no uncertainty that the oath applies to the appellants and the issue they raise is not whether the oath permits them to engage in certain definable activities. Rather their complaint is that they, about 64 in number, cannot understand the required promise, cannot define the range of activities in which they might engage in the future, and do not want to forswear doing all that is literally or arguably within the purview of the vague terms. In these circumstances it is difficult to see how an abstract construction of the challenged terms, such as precept, example, allegiance, institutions, and the like, in a declaratory judgment action could eliminate the vagueness from these terms. It is fictional to believe that anything less than extensive adjudications, under the impact of a variety of factual situations, would bring the oath within the bounds of permissible constitutional certainty. Abstention does not require this.
Other considerations also militate against abstention here. Construction of this oath in the state court, abstractly and without reference to concrete, particularized situations so necessary to bring into focus the impact of the terms on constitutionally protected rights of speech and association, Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 341 (Brandeis, J., concurring), would not only hold little hope of eliminating the issue of vagueness but also would very likely pose other constitutional issues for decision, a result not serving the abstention-justifying end of avoiding constitutional adjudication.
We also cannot ignore that abstention operates to require piecemeal adjudication in many courts, England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, thereby delaying ultimate adjudication on the merits for an undue length of time, England, supra; Spector, supra; Government & Civic Employees Organizing Committee v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364, a result quite costly where the vagueness of a state statute may inhibit the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. Indeed the 1955 subversive person oath has been under continuous constitutional attack since at least 1957, Nostrand v. Balmer, 53 Wash. 2d 460, 463, 335 P. 2d 10, 12, and is now before this Court for the third time. Remitting these litigants to the state courts for a construction of the 1931 oath would further protract these proceedings, already pending for almost two years, with only the likelihood that the case, perhaps years later, will return to the three-judge District Court and perhaps this Court for a decision on the identical issue herein decided. See Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 357 U. S. 77, 84; Public Utilities Comm’n of Ohio v. United Fuel Co., 317 U. S. 456. Meanwhile, where the vagueness of the statute deters constitutionally protected conduct, “the free dissemination of ideas may be the loser.” Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 151.
V.
As in Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, supra, we do not question the power of a State to take proper measures safeguarding the public service from disloyal conduct. But measures which purport to define disloyalty must allow public servants to know what is and is not disloyal. “The fact... that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution.” Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488, 495-496.
Reversed.
“ ‘Subversive organization’ means any organization which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or a purpose of which is to engage in or advocate, abet, advise, or teach activities intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of the United States, or of the state of Washington, or of any political subdivision of either of them, by revolution, force or violence.” Wash. Rev. Code §9.81.010 (2).
“ ‘Foreign subversive organization’ means any organization directed, dominated or controlled directly or indirectly by a foreign government which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or a purpose of which is to engage in or to advocate, abet, advise, or teach, activities intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of the constitutional form of the government of the United States, or of the state of Washington, or of any political subdivision of either of them, and to establish in place thereof any form of government the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under, the domination or control of any foreign government, organization, or individual.” Wash. Rev. Code §9.81.010 (3).
“Communist party declared a subversive organization.
“The communist party is a subversive organization within the purview of chapter 9.81 and membership in the communist party is a subversive activity thereunder.” Wash. Rev. Code §9.81.083.
Although the 1931 Act has not been the subject of previous challenge, an attack upon the 1955 loyalty statute was instituted by two of the appellants in the present ease, Professors Howard Nostrand and Max Savelle, who brought a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington asking that Chapter 377, 'Laws of 1955, be declared unconstitutional and that its enforcement be enjoined. The Washington Supreme Court held that one section was unconstitutional but severable from the rest of the Act, whose validity was upheld. Nostrand v. Balmer, 53 Wash. 2d 460, 335 P. 2d 10. On appeal to this Court the decision of the Washington court was vacated and the case remanded for a determination of whether employees who refused to sign the oath would be afforded a hearing at which they could explain or defend the reasons for their refusal. Nostrand v. Little, 362 U. S. 474. The Washington Supreme Court held upon remand that since Professors Nostrand and Savelle were tenured professors the terms of their contracts and rules promulgated by the Board of Regents entitled them to a hearing. Nostrand v. Little, 58 Wash. 2d 111, 361 P. 2d 551. This Court dismissed a further appeal, Nostrand v. Little, 368 U. S. 436. The issue we find dispositive of the case at bar was not presented to this Court in the above proceedings.
“Oath Form A
“STATE OF WASHINGTON
“Statement and Oath for Teaching Faculty of the University of Washington
“I, the undersigned, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution and laws of the United States of America and of the state of Washington, and will by precept and example promote respect for the flag and the institutions of the United States of America and the state of Washington, reverence for law and order, and undivided allegiance to the government of the United States;
“I further certify that I have read the provisions of RCW 9.81.010 (2), (3), and (5); RCW 9.81.060; RCW 9.81.070; and RCW 9.81.083, which are printed on the reverse hereof; that I understand and am familiar with the contents thereof; that I am not a subversive person as therein defined; and
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am not a member of the Communist party or knowingly of any other subversive organization.
“I understand that this statement and oath are made subject to the penalties of perjury.
(SIGNATURE)
(title and department)
“Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) to before me this day of.,19.
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OP WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT.
“(To be executed in duplicate, one copy to be retained by individual.)
“NOTE: Those desiring to affirm may strike the words'swear' and'sworn to’ and substitute ‘affirm’ and ‘affirmed,’ respectively.”
“Oath Form B
“STATE OF WASHINGTON
“Statement and Oath for Staff of the University of Washington Other Than Teaching Faculty
“I certify that I have read the provisions of RCW 9.81.010 (2), (3), and (5); RCW 9.81.060; RCW 9.81.070; and RCW 9.81.083 which are printed on the reverse hereof; that I understand and am familiar with the contents thereof; that I am not a subversive person as therein defined; and
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am not a member of the Communist party or knowingly of any other subversive organization.
“I understand that this statement and oath are made subject to the penalties of perjury.
(siGNAtube)
(TITLE AND DEPARTMENT OR OFFICE)
“Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) to before me this... day of.,19.
NOTARY public IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT.
“(To be executed in duplicate, one copy to be retained by individual.)
“NOTE: Those desiring to affirm may strike the words ‘swear’ and ‘sworn to’ and substitute ‘affirm’ and ‘affirmed,’ respectively.”
Since the ground we find dispositive immediately affects the professors and other state employees required to take the oath, and the interests of the students at the University in academic freedom are fully protected by a judgment in favor of the teaching personnel, we have no occasion to pass on the standing of the students to bring this suit.
The drafters of the 1951 Subversive Activities Act stated to the Washington Legislature that “[t]he [Communist Party] dovetailed, nation-wide program is designed to... create unrest and civil strife, and impede the normal processes of state and national government, all to the end of weakening and ultimately destroying the United States as a constitutional republic and thereby facilitating the avowed Soviet purpose of substituting here a totalitarian dictatorship.” First Report of the Joint Legislative Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities in Washington State, 1948, p. iv.
The contention that the Court found no constitutional difficulties with identical definitions of subversive person and subversive organizations in Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 341 U. S. 56, is without merit. It was forcefully argued in Gerende that candidates for state office in Maryland were required to take an oath incorporating a section of the Maryland statutes defining subversive person and organization in the identical terms challenged herein. But the Court rejected this interpretation of Maryland law and did not pass upon or approve the definitions of subversive person and organization contained in the Maryland statutes. Instead it made very clear that the judgment below was affirmed solely on the basis that the actual oath to be imposed under Maryland law requires one to swear that he is not a person who is engaged “ ‘in the attempt to overthrow the government by force or violence,’ and that he is not knowingly a member of an organization engaged in such an attempt.” Id., at 66-57 (emphasis in original). The Court said: “At the bar of this Court the Attorney General of the State of Maryland declared that he would advise the proper authorities to accept an affidavit in these terms as satisfying in full the statutory requirement. Under these circumstances and with this understanding, the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals is Affirmed.’’ Id., at 57.
It is also argued that § 2 of the Smith Act, 18 U. S. C. § 2385, upheld over a vagueness challenge in Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, proscribes the same activity in the same language as the Washington statute. This argument is founded on a misreading of § 2 and Dennis v. United States, supra.
That section provides:
“Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State... by force or violence....”
The convictions under this provision were sustained in Dennis, supra, on the construction that the statute means “teaching and advocacy of action for the accomplishment of [overthrowing or destroying organized government] by language reasonably and ordinarily calculated to incite persons to such action... as speedily as circumstances would permit.” Id., at 511-512. In connection with the vagueness attack, it was noted that “[t] his is a federal statute which we must interpret as well as judge. Herein lies the fallacy of reliance upon the manner in which this Court has treated judgments of state co.urts....” Id., at 502.
In reversing convictions under this section in Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, the Court made quite clear exactly what all the above terms do and do not proscribe: “[T]he Smith Act reaches only advocacy of action for the overthrow of government by force and violence.” Id., at 324.
Webster’s New Int. Dictionary (2d ed.), at 1288.
“The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system. A statute which upon its face... is so vague and indefinite as to permit the punishment of the fair use of this opportunity is repugnant to the guaranty of liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.” Stromberg v. California. 283 U. S. 359, 369. “[Sjtatutes restrictive of or purporting to place limits to those [First Amendment] freedoms must be narrowly drawn to meet the precise evil the legislature seeks to curb... and... the conduct proscribed must be defined specifically so that the person or persons affected remain secure and unrestrained in their rights to engage in activities not encompassed by the legislation.” United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 335 U. S. 106, 141-142 (Rutledge, J., concurring).
“When the validity of a state statute, challenged under the United States Constitution, is properly for adjudication before a United States District Court, reference to the state courts for construction of the statute should not automatically be made.” NAACP v. Ben nett, 360 U. S. 471. See also United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9, 12-13 (D. C. E. D. S. C.), aff’d, Livingston v. United States, 364 U. S. 281: “Though never interpreted by a state court, if a state statute is not fairly subject to an interpretation which will avoid or modify the federal constitutional question, it is the duty of a federal court to decide the federal question when presented to it.” Shelton v. McKinley, 174 F. Supp. 351 (D. C. E. D. Ark.) (abstention inappropriate where there are no substantial problems of statutory construction and delay would prejudice constitutional rights); All American Airways v. Village of Cedarhurst, 201 F. 2d 273 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Sterling Drug v. Anderson, 127 F. Supp. 511, 513 (D. C. E. D. Tenn.).
See, e. g., Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496; Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, Inc., 316 U. S. 168; Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450; American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582; Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368; Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U. S. 321; Albertson v. Millard, 345 U. S. 242; Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States, 352 U. S. 220; Government & Civic Employees Organizing Committee, C. I. O., v. Windsor
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Oregon Court of Appeals decided that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution barred respondent’s retrial after his first trial ended in a mistrial granted on his own motion. 49 Ore. App. 415, 619 P. 2d 948 (1980), cert. granted, 454 U. S. 891 (1981). The Court of Appeals concluded that retrial was barred because the prosecutorial misconduct that occasioned the mistrial in the first instance amounted to “overreaching.” Because that court took an overly expansive view of the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause following a mistrial resulting from the defendant’s own motion, we reverse its judgment.
I
Respondent was charged with the theft of an oriental rug. During his first trial, the State called an expert witness on the subject of Middle Eastern rugs to testify as to the value and the identity of the rug in question. On cross-examination, respondent’s attorney apparently attempted to establish bias on the part of the expert witness by asking him whether he had filed a criminal complaint against respondent. The witness eventually acknowledged this fact, but explained that no action had been taken on his complaint. On redirect examination, the prosecutor sought to elicit the reasons why the witness had filed a complaint against respondent, but the trial court sustained a series of objections to this line of inquiry. The following colloquy then ensued:
“Prosecutor: Have you ever done business with the Kennedys?
“Witness: No, I have not.
“Prosecutor: Is that because he is a crook?”
The trial court then granted respondent’s motion for a mistrial.
When the State later sought to retry respondent, he moved to dismiss the charges because of double jeopardy. After a hearing at which the prosecutor testified, the trial court found as a fact that “it was not the intention of the prosecutor in this case to cause a mistrial.” 49 Ore. App., at 418, 619 P. 2d, at 949. On the basis of this finding, the trial court held that double jeopardy principles did not bar retrial, and respondent was then tried and convicted.
Respondent then successfully appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which sustained his double jeopardy claim. That court set out what it considered to be the governing principles in this kind of case:
“The general rule is said to be that the double jeopardy clause does not bar reprosecution, . . where circumstances develop not attributable to prosecutorial or judicial overreaching, . . . even if defendant’s motion is necessitated by a prosecutorial error.’ United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S. 470, 485 . . . (197[1]). However, retrial is barred where the error that prompted the mistrial is intended to provoke a mistrial or is ‘motivated by bad faith or undertaken to harass or prejudice’ the defendant. United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S. 600, 611 . . . (1976). Accord, State v. Rathbun, 37 Or. App. 259, 586 P. 2d 1136 (1978), reversed on other grounds, 287 Or. 421, [600] P. 2d [329] (1979).” Id., at 417-418, 619 P. 2d, at 949.
The Court of Appeals accepted the trial court’s finding that it was not the intent of the prosecutor to cause a mistrial. Nevertheless, the court held that retrial was barred because the prosecutor’s conduct in this case constituted what it viewed as “overreaching.” Although the prosecutor intended to rehabilitate the witness, the Court of Appeals expressed the view that the question was in fact “a direct personal attack on the general character of the defendant.” Id., at 418, 619 P. 2d, at 949. This personal attack left respondent with a “Hobson’s choice — either to accept a necessarily prejudiced jury, or to move for a mistrial and face the process of being retried at a later time.” Id., at 418, 619 P. 2d, at 950.
Before turning to the merits of the double jeopardy claim, we are met with the respondent’s contention that the Court of Appeals’ decision is based upon an adequate and independent state ground. Respondent contends in the alternative that the basis for the decision below is sufficiently uncertain that we ought to remand this case in order that the Court of Appeals may clarify the grounds upon which its judgment rested. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 652 (1979); California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33, 35 (1972).
We reject both of these contentions. A fair reading of the opinion below convinces us that the Court of Appeals rested its decision solely on federal law. With one exception, the cases it cited in outlining the “general rule” that guided its decision are decisions of this Court. The Court of Appeals’ citation to State v. Rathbun, 37 Ore. App. 259, 586 P. 2d 1136 (1978), rev’d, 287 Ore. 421, 600 P. 2d 392 (1979), was clearly to its own decision in that case, rather than the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Rathbun was based on state statutory and constitutional grounds, the Court of Appeals’ decision in Rathbun clearly rested on federal grounds, a fact which was so recognized by the Oregon Supreme Court. Id., at 430-431, 600 P. 2d, at 396-397. Even if the case admitted of more doubt as to whether federal and state grounds for decision were intermixed, the fact that the state court relied to the extent it did on federal grounds requires us to reach the merits. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562, 568 (1977).
II
The Double J eopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects a criminal defendant from repeated prosecutions for the same offense. United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S. 600, 606 (1976). As a part of this protection against multiple prosecutions, the Double Jeopardy Clause affords a criminal defendant a “valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.” Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684, 689 (1949). The Double Jeopardy Clause, however, does not offer a guarantee to the defendant that the State will vindicate its societal interest in the enforcement of the criminal laws in one proceeding. United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S. 470, 483-484 (1971) (plurality opinion); Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S., at 689. If the law were otherwise, “the purpose of law to protect society from those guilty of crimes frequently would be frustrated by denying courts power to put the defendant to trial again.” Ibid.
Where the trial is terminated over the objection of the defendant, the classical test for lifting the double jeopardy bar to a second trial is the “manifest necessity” standard first enunciated in Justice Story’s opinion for the Court in United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580 (1824). Perez dealt with the most common form of “manifest necessity”: a mistrial declared by the judge following the jury’s declaration that it was unable to reach a verdict. While other situations have been recognized by our cases as meeting the “manifest necessity” standard, the hung jury remains the prototypical example. See, e. g., Arizona v. Washington, 434 U. S. 497, 509 (1978); Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U. S. 458, 463 (1973). The “manifest necessity” standard provides sufficient protection to the defendant’s interests in having his case finally decided by the jury first selected while at the same time maintaining “the public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments.” Wade v. Hunter, supra, at 689.
But in the case of a mistrial declared at the behest of the defendant, quite different principles come into play. Here the defendant himself has elected to terminate the proceedings against him, and the “manifest necessity” standard has no place in the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Dinitz, supra, at 607-610. Indeed, in United States v. Tateo, 377 U. S. 463, 467 (1964), the Court stated:
“If Tateo had requested a mistrial on the basis of the judge’s comments, there would be no doubt that if he had been successful, the Government would not have been barred from retrying him” (emphasis in original).
Our cases, however, have indicated that even where the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is a narrow exception to the rule that the Double Jeopardy Clause is no bar to retrial. See, e. g., United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U. S. 117, 130 (1980); United States v. Dinitz, supra, at 611; United States v. Jorn, supra, at 485; United States v. Tateo, supra, at 468, n. 3. The circumstances under which respondent’s first trial was terminated require us to delineate the bounds of that exception more fully than we have in previous cases.
Since one of the principal threads making up the protection embodied in the Double Jeopardy Clause is the right of the defendant to have his trial completed before the first jury empaneled to try him, it may be wondered as a matter of original inquiry why the defendant’s election to terminate the first trial by his own motion should not be deemed a renunciation of that right for all purposes. We have recognized, however, that there would be great difficulty in applying such a rule where the prosecutor’s actions giving rise to the motion for mistrial were done “in order to goad the [defendant] into requesting a mistrial.” United States v. Dinitz, supra, at 611. In such a case, the defendant’s valued right to complete his trial before the first jury would be a hollow shell if the inevitable motion for mistrial were held to prevent a later invocation of the bar of double jeopardy in all circumstances. But the precise phrasing of the circumstances which will allow a defendant to interpose the defense of double jeopardy to a second prosecution where the first has terminated on his own motion for a mistrial have been stated with less than crystal clarity in our cases which deal with this area of the law. In United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S., at 611, we said:
“The Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby to subject defendants to the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecutions.”
This language would seem to follow the rule of United States v. Tateo, supra, at 468, n. 3, in limiting the exception to cases of governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests. But immediately following the quoted language we went on to say:
“[The Double Jeopardy Clause] bars retrials where ‘bad-faith conduct by judge or prosecutor,’ threatens the ‘[harassment of an accused by successive prosecutions or declaration of a mistrial so as to afford the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict’ the defendant.” United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S., at 611 (citation omitted).
' The language just quoted would seem to broaden the test from one of intent to provoke a motion for a mistrial to a more generalized standard of “bad faith conduct” or “harassment” on the part of the judge or prosecutor. It was upon this language that the Oregon Court of Appeals apparently relied in concluding that the prosecutor’s colloquy with the expert witness in this case amount to “overreaching.”
The difficulty with the more general standards which would permit a broader exception than one merely based on intent is that they offer virtually no standards for their application. Every act on the part of a rational prosecutor during a trial is designed to “prejudice” the defendant by placing before the judge or jury evidence leading to a finding of his guilt. Given the complexity of the rules of evidence, it will be a rare trial of any complexity in which some proffered evidence by the prosecutor or by the defendant’s attorney will not be found objectionable by the trial court. Most such objections are undoubtedly curable by simply refusing to allow the proffered evidence to be admitted, or in the case of a particular line of inquiry taken by counsel with a witness, by an admonition to desist from a particular line of inquiry.
More serious infractions on the part of the prosecutor may provoke a motion for mistrial on the part of the defendant, and may in the view of the trial court warrant the granting of such a motion. The “overreaching” standard applied by the court below and urged today by Justice Stevens, however, would add another classification of prosecutorial error, one requiring dismissal of the indictment, but without supplying any standard by which to assess that error.
By contrast, a standard that examines the intent of the prosecutor, though certainly not entirely free from practical difficulties, is a manageable standard to apply. It merely calls for the court to make a finding of fact. Inferring the existence or nonexistence of intent from objective facts and circumstances is a familiar process in our criminal justice system. When it is remembered that resolution of double jeopardy questions by state trial courts are reviewable not only within the state court system, but in the federal court system on habeas corpus as well, the desirability of an easily applied principle is apparent.
Prosecutorial conduct that might be viewed as harassment or overreaching, even if sufficient to justify a mistrial on defendant’s motion, therefore, does not bar retrial absent intent on the part of the prosecutor to subvert the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause. A defendant’s motion for a mistrial constitutes “a deliberate election on his part to forgo his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact.” United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 93 (1978). Where prosecutorial error even of a degree sufficient to warrant a mistrial has occurred, “[t]he important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error.” United States v. Dinitz, supra, at 609. Only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to “goad” the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion.
Were we to embrace the broad and somewhat amorphous standard adopted by the Oregon Court of Appeals, we are not sure that criminal defendants as a class would be aided. Knowing that the granting of the defendant’s motion for mistrial would all but inevitably bring with it an attempt to bar a second trial on grounds of double jeopardy, the judge presiding over the first trial might well be more loath to grant a defendant’s motion for mistrial. If a mistrial were in fact warranted under the applicable law, of course, the defendant could in many instances successfully appeal a judgment of conviction on the same grounds that he urged a mistrial, and the Double Jeopardy Clause would present no bar to retrial. But some of the advantages secured to him by the Double Jeopardy Clause — the freedom from extended anxiety, and the necessity to confront the government’s case only once— would be to a large extent lost in the process of trial to verdict, reversal on appeal, and subsequent retrial. See United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S., at 608.
In adopting the position we now do, we recognize that language taken from our earlier opinions may well suggest a broader rule. The Court of Appeals in this case, for example, may have derived its “overreaching” standard from the following language in the plurality opinion in United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S., at 485:
“Thus, where circumstances develop not attributable to prosecutorial or judicial overreaching, a motion by defendant for mistrial is ordinarily assumed to remove any barrier to reprosecution, even if the defendant’s motion is necessitated by prosecutorial or judicial error.”
A footnote attached to this sentence explains, however, that “where a defendant’s mistrial motion is necessitated by judicial or prosecutorial impropriety designed to avoid an acquittal, reprosecution might well be barred.” Id., at 485, n. 12. There are likewise statements in United States v. Dinitz, supra, at 611, based largely on the plurality opinion in Jom to the same effect.
Because of the confusion which these varying statements of the standard in question have occasioned in other courts, we deem it best to acknowledge the confusion and its justifiability in the light of these statements from previous decisions. We do not by this opinion lay down a flat rule that where a defendant in a criminal trial successfully moves for a mistrial, he may not thereafter invoke the bar of double jeopardy against a second trial. But we do hold that the circumstances under which such a defendant may invoke the bar of double jeopardy in a second effort to try him are limited to those cases in which the conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.
Since the Oregon trial court found, and the Oregon Court of Appeals accepted, that the prosecutorial conduct culminating in the termination of the first trial in this case was not so intended by the prosecutor, that is the end of the matter for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Court of Appeals later explained that respondent’s “objections were not well taken, and the judge’s rulings were probably wrong.” 49 Ore. App. 415, 417, 619 P. 2d 948, 949 (1980).
These proceedings were not conducted by the same trial judge who presided over respondent’s initial trial.
This Court held in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), that this Clause was made applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Cf. United States v. Tateo, 377 U. S. 463, 468, n. 3 (1964) (“If there were any intimation in a ease that prosecutorial or judicial impropriety justifying a mistrial resulted from a fear that the jury was likely to acquit the accused, different considerations would, of course, obtain”).
If the Court were to hold, as would Justice Stevens, that such a determination requires an assessment of the facts and circumstances but without explaining how such an assessment ought to proceed, the Court would offer little guidance to the federal and state courts that must apply our decisions. Justice Stevens disagrees with the decision below because his reaction to a cold record is different from that of the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found “overreaching”; Justice Stevens finds none. Neither articulates a basis for reaching their respective conclusions which can be applied to other factual situations. We are loath to adopt such an essentially standardless rule.
This Court has consistently held that the Double Jeopardy Clause imposes no limitation upon the power of the government to retry a defendant who has succeeded in persuading a court to set his conviction aside, unless the conviction has been reversed because of the insufficiency of the evidence. See, e. g., United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U. S. 117, 130-131 (1980).
Justice Stevens’ opinion concurring in the judgment criticizes the suggestion that the broader rule he espouses would make it less likely the judges would grant a motion for mistrial than if the narrower rule prevailed. Post, at 687-688, n. 22. Justice Stevens’ criticism of our conclusion appears to be based on the erroneous assumption that the courts in such a situation would be applying the narrow rule, rather than the broad rule. Tested by the correct assumption that the courts would be applying the all-encompassing standard denominated “overreaching,” which he espouses, post, at 689-690, we do not find his criticisms persuasive. If appellate courts and trial courts alike in this branch of the law of double jeopardy were applying a rule of “black letter law” to a predetermined set of facts, it might be true that an appellate court would inevitably reach the conclusion that reprosecution should be barred in a number of cases where the trial court had actually denied the motion for mistrial. But there are two reasons why such a hypothesis is inapplicable here.
First, the rule espoused by Justice Stevens is anything but a rule of “black letter law.” We are admonished that “[i]t is unnecessary and unwise to attempt to identify all the factors that might inform the court’s judgment.” Ibid. Second, appellate courts have traditionally given weight to a trial court’s assessment as to the necessity for a mistrial in deciding questions of double jeopardy. As this Court said in Gori v. United States, 367 U. S. 364, 368 (1961):
“Where, for reasons deemed compelling by the trial judge, who is best situated intelligently to make such a decision, the ends of substantial justice cannot be obtained without discontinuing the trial, a mistrial may be declared without the defendant’s consent and even over his objection, and he may be retried consistently with the Fifth Amendment.”
It seems entirely reasonable to expect, therefore, that appellate judges will continue to defer to the judgment of trial judges who are “on the scene” in this area, and that they will not inexorably reach the same conclusion on a cold record at the appellate stage that they might if any one of them had been sitting as a trial judge. And a trial judge trying to faithfully apply the amorphous standard enunciated by Justice Stevens could surely be forgiven if in cases he regarded as extremely close he resolved the doubt in favor of continuing a trial to its conclusion rather than aborting it.
Justice Stevens states that we “gratuitously lo[p] off a portion of the previously recognized exception.” Post, at 681. This charge is simply not borne out by even a moderately careful reading of our cases on the point. The footnote in United States v. Tateo, 377 U. S., at 468, n. 3, quoted in n. 4, supra, states the exception in terms of prosecutorial misconduct motivated by “fear that the jury was likely to acquit the accused.” The plurality opinion in United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S. 470, 485 (1971), quoted in the text, states the test in the broader terms of “prosecutorial or judicial overreaching”; the Court’s opinion in United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S. 600 (1976), speaks at one point in terms of “governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests,” id., at 611, and at another point on the same page of “ ‘bad-faith conduct by judge or prosecutor’ ” which “threatens the ‘[hjarassment of an accused by successive prosecutions . . . .’ ” Only last Term, in United States v. DiFrancesco, supra, we said that “reprosecution of a defendant who has successfully moved for a mistrial is not barred, so long as the Government did not deliberately seek to provoke the mistrial request.” Id., at 130.
Thus, it is quite inaccurate to suggest that our previous cases have single-mindedly adhered to one rule in cases such as this, and that we are now “lopping off” a part of that rule. However this case is decided, we are faced with a choice between two differing lines of authority in our own recent precedents; for the reasons stated in the text, supra, at 674-677, we think that the better arguments favor the rule which we adopt. But Justice Stevens, no less than we, chooses one of two differing rules; the state of our case law indicates that the justification for the choice must be based upon principle, and not authority.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 a federal estate tax controversy. Here, as in Commissioner v. Church, ante, p. 632, we granted cer-tiorari to consider questions dependent upon the meaning and application of a provision of § 811 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code. 47 Stat. 169, 279, as amended, 26 U. S. C. §811 (c). The particular provision requires including in a decedent’s gross estate the value at his death of all property “To the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer, by trust or otherwise . . . intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after his death
In 1920 Sidney M. Spiegel, a resident of Illinois, made a transfer by trust of certain stocks to himself and another. He died in 1940. During his life the trust income was to be divided among his three children; if they did not survive him, to any of their surviving children. On his death the trust provided that the corpus was to be distributed in the same manner. But no provision was made for distribution of the corpus and its accumulated income should Mr. Spiegel survive all of his children and grandchildren. For this reason the Government has contended that under controlling state law the property would have reverted to Mr. Spiegel had he survived his designated beneficiaries.
The value of the corpus of this trust was not included in the Spiegel estate tax return. The Commissioner concluded that its value with accumulated income, about $1,140,000, should have been included in the gross estate under § 811 (c). The Tax Court held otherwise in an unreported opinion. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 159 F. 2d 257. It held that the possession or enjoyment provision of §811 (c) required inclusion of the value of the trust property and accumulated income under the rule declared in Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, because under state law the trust agreement left the way open for the property to revert to Mr. Spiegel in case he outlived all the beneficiaries. This holding rested on the agreement of parties that whether there was a right of reverter depended on Illinois law, and the court’s conclusion that under Illinois law a right of reverter did exist.
The Hallock case on which the Court of Appeals relied held that the value of trust properties should have been included in a settlor’s gross estate under the “possession or enjoyment” provision where trust agreements had expressly provided that the corpus should revert to the set-tlor in the event he outlived the beneficiaries. The taxpayer has contended here, as in the Tax Court and the Court of Appeals, that the Hallock rule is not applicable to this trust, where the settlor’s chance to get back his property depended on state law and not on an express reservation by the settlor. This contention of the taxpayer rests in part on the argument that § 811 (c) imposes a tax only where it can be shown that the settlor’s intent was to reserve for himself a contingent reversionary interest in the property. Another contention is that the value of this contingent reversionary interest was so small in comparison with the total value of the corpus that the Hallock rule should not be applied. A third contention is that the Court of Appeals holding was erroneous in that under Illinois law the corpus of this trust would not have reverted to the settlor had all the beneficiaries died while the settlor was still living. Petitioners urge that in that event the Illinois courts would have held that the corpus passed to the heirs of the last surviving beneficiary.
We hold that the Hallock rule was rightly applied by the Court of Appeals and we accept its holding as to the applicable Illinois law.
First. In Commissioner v. Church, ante, p. 632, we have discussed the Hallock holding in relation to the scope of the “possession or enjoyment” provision of § 811 (c) and need not elaborate what we said there. What we said demonstrates that the taxability of a trust corpus under this provision of §811 (c) does not hinge on a set-tlor’s motives, but depends on the nature and operative effect of the trust transfer. In the Church case we stated that a trust transaction cannot be held to alienate all of a settlor’s “possession or enjoyment” under § 811 (c) unless it effects “a bona fide transfer in which the settlor, absolutely, unequivocally, irrevocably, and without possible reservations, parts with all of his title and all of his possession and all of his enjoyment of the transferred property. After such a transfer has been made, the set-tlor must be left with no present legal title in the property, no possible reversionary interest in that title, and no right to possess or to enjoy the property then or thereafter. In other words such a transfer must be immediate and out and out, and must be unaffected by whether the grantor lives or dies.” We add to that statement, if it can be conceived of as an addition, that it is immaterial whether such a present or future interest, absolute or contingent, remains in the grantor because he deliberately reserves it or because, without considering the consequences, he conveys away less than all of his property ownership and attributes, present or prospective. In either event the settlor has not parted with all of his presently existing or future contingent interests in the property transferred. He has therefore not made that “complete” kind of trust transfer that § 811 (c) commands as a prerequisite to a showing that he has certainly and irrevocably parted with his “possession or enjoyment.” Any requirement less than that which we have outlined, such as a post-death attempt to probe the settlor’s thoughts in regard to the transfer, would partially impair the effectiveness of the “possession or enjoyment” provision as an instrument to frustrate estate tax evasions. To this extent it would defeat the precise purpose for which the provision was originated and which prompted Congress to include it in § 811 (c).
Determination of such issues as ownership, possession, enjoyment, whether transfers have been made and the reach of those transfers, may involve many questions of fact. And we have held in many cases that to the extent the determination of such issues depends upon fact finding, many different facts may be relevant. These fact issues in federal tax cases are for the Tax Court to decide in cases brought before it.
In this case the Tax Court made findings of fact and then decided against the Government. It did so, however, by holding as a matter of law that those facts did not require inclusion of the value of this corpus in the settlor’s estate. But the Tax Court’s findings of fact showed that the trust contained no provision for disposition of the corpus should the settlor outlive the beneficiaries. This finding of fact, which we accept, plus the Court of Appeals determination of controlling Illinois law, without more, brings this trust transaction within the scope of the possession or enjoyment provision of § 811(c) as we have interpreted that section in the Hallock and Church cases. And petitioner has not contended that it was denied an opportunity to present any relevant evidence concerning ownership, possession, or enjoyment. It is therefore not necessary to remand the case to the Tax Court for any further finding of facts. See Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U. S. 552, 559-560.
Second. It is contended that since the monetary value of the settlor’s contingent reversionary interest is small in comparison with the total value of the corpus, the possession or enjoyment provision of § 811 (c) should not be applied. But inclusion of a trust corpus under that provision is not dependent upon the value of the rever-sionary interest. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Rothensies, 324 U. S. 108, 112; Commissioner v. Estate of Field, 324 U. S. 113, 116; see Goldstone v. United States, 325 U. S. 687, 691. The question is not how much is the value of a reservation, but whether after a trust transfer, considered by Congress to be a potentially dangerous tax evasion transaction, some present or contingent right or interest in the property still remains in the settlor so that full and complete title, possession or enjoyment does not absolutely pass to the beneficiaries until at or after the settlor’s death. See Smith v. Shaughnessy, 318 U. S. 176, 181.
Third. It is contended that under Illinois law the corpus of this trust would not have reverted to the settlor had he outlived the beneficiaries. The record reveals that the state law problem here is not an easy one, but under this Court’s decision in Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U. S. 228, the difficulty involved did not relieve the Court of Appeals of its duty to make a decision. The questioned ruling was made by three judges who are constantly required to pass upon Illinois law questions. One of the three judges has long been a resident and lawyer of Illinois. Examination of the Illinois state court opinions pressed upon us leaves us unable to say with any degree of certainty that the Court of Appeals holding was wrong. It is certainly neither novel nor unreasonable for state law to provide that when all trust beneficiaries die the trust corpus should revert to the donor. It would be wholly unprofitable for us to analyze Illinois cases on the point here urged. It is sufficient for us to say that we think reasonable arguments can be made based on Illinois cases to support a determination of this question either for or against the petitioner’s contention. Under these circumstances we will follow our general policy and leave undisturbed this Court of Appeals holding on a question of state law.
All other arguments of the petitioners have been noted and we find them without merit.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Jackson dissents.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Reed, concurring in this decision but dissenting from that in Commissioner v. Estate of Church, ante, p. 632, see ante, p. 651.]
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, dissenting from this decision and also that in Commissioner v. Estate of Church, ante, p. 632, see ante, p. 667.]
This Court of Appeals interpretation and application of § 811 (c) was in conflict with the holding of the Third Circuit in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Church’s Estate, 161 F. 2d 11. We granted certiorari in both cases, arguments have been heard together, and we have today reversed the Church case, ante, p. 632.
The Tax Court’s conclusion of law that the “possession or enjoyment” clause of § 811 (c) was inapplicable to the facts of this trust rested in part on its belief that Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U. S. 339, had decided the issue. But the Halloek case was decided after Reinecke, and the question here involved was not specifically raised in the Reinecke case. Nor did the Court’s opinion in that case, written by the late Chief Justice Stone, indicate that a transfer of bare legal title in a transfer must always be accepted as a conclusive showing that the possession and enjoyment provision of § 811 (c) cannot be applied to the trust corpus. Cf. Court’s opinion in Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U. S. 579, written by Chief Justice Stone.
Helvering v. Stuart, 317 U. S. 154, 162-165; cf. Steele v. General Mills, 329 U. S. 433.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion, in which Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice White join.
In Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1, decided June 22, 1970, we held that a preliminary hearing is a critical stage of the criminal process at which the accused is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel. This case presents the question whether that constitutional doctrine applies retroactively to preliminary hearings conducted prior to June 22, 1970.
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, conducted a preliminary hearing on February 10, 1967, on a charge against petitioner of selling heroin. Petitioner was not represented by counsel at the hearing. He was bound over to the grand jury, which indicted him. By pretrial motion he sought dismissal of the indictment on the ground that it was invalid because of the failure of the court to appoint counsel to represent him at the preliminary hearing. The motion was denied on May 3, 1967, on the authority of People v. Morris, 30 Ill. 2d 406, 197 N. E. 2d 433 (1964). In Morris the Illinois Supreme Court held that the Illinois preliminary hearing was not a critical stage at which the accused had a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court, which rejected petitioner's argument that the later Coleman decision required reversal. The court acknowledged that its Morris decision was superseded by Coleman, but held that Coleman applied only to preliminary hearings conducted after June 22, 1970, the date Coleman was decided. 46 Ill. 2d 200, 263 N. E. 2d 490 (1970). We granted certiorari limited to the question of the retroactivity of Coleman. 401 U. S. 953 (1971). We affirm.
The criteria guiding resolution of the question of the retroactivity of new constitutional rules of criminal procedure “implicate (a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards.” Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 297 (1967). We have given complete retroactive effect to the new rule, regardless of good-faith reliance by law enforcement authorities or the degree of impact on the administration of justice, where the “major purpose of new constitutional doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial that substantially impairs its truth-finding function and so raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials Williams v. United States, 401 U. S. 646, 653 (1971). Examples are the right to counsel at trial, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963); on appeal, Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963); or at some forms of arraignment, Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52 (1961). See generally Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 297-298; Williams v. United States, supra, at 653 n. 6.
However, “the question whether a constitutional rule of criminal procedure does or does not enhance the reliability of the fact-finding process at trial is necessarily a matter of degree,” Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 728-729 (1966); it is a “question of probabilities.” Id., at 729. Thus, although the rule requiring the assistance of counsel at a lineup, United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263 (1967), is “aimed at avoiding unfairness at the trial by enhancing the reliability of the fact-finding process in the area of identification evidence,” we held that the probabilities of infecting the integrity of the truth-determining process by denial of counsel at the lineup were sufficiently less than the omission of counsel at the trial itself or on appeal that those probabilities “must in turn be weighed against the prior justified reliance upon the old standard and the impact of retroactivity upon the administration of justice.” Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 298.
We hold that similarly the role of counsel at the preliminary hearing differs sufficiently from the role of counsel at trial in its impact upon the integrity of the factfinding process as to require the weighing of the probabilities of such infection against the elements of prior justified reliance and the impact of retroactivity upon the administration of criminal justice. We may lay aside the functions of counsel at the preliminary hearing that do not bear on the factfinding process at trial — counsel's help in persuading the court not to hold the accused for the grand jury or meanwhile to admit the accused to bail. Coleman, 399 U. S., at 9. Of counsel's other functions — to “fashion a vital impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the State’s witnesses at the trial,” to “discover the case the State has against his client,” “making effective arguments for the accused on such matters as the necessity for an early psychiatric examination . . . ,” ibid. — impeachment and discovery may make particularly significant contribution to the enhancement of the factfinding process, since they materially affect an accused’s ability to present an effective defense at trial. But because of limitations upon the use of the preliminary hearing for discovery and impeachment purposes, counsel cannot be as effectual as at trial or on appeal. The authority of the court to terminate the preliminary hearing once probable cause is established, see People v. Bonner, 37 Ill. 2d 553, 560, 229 N. E. 2d 527, 531 (1967), means that the degree of discovery obtained will vary depending on how much evidence the presiding judge receives. Too, the preliminary hearing is held at an early stage of the prosecution when the evidence ultimately gathered by the prosecution may not be complete. Cf. S. Rep. No. 371, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 33, on amending 18 U. S. C. § 3060. Counsel must also avail himself of alternative procedures, always a significant factor to be weighed in the scales. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S., at 730. Illinois provides, for example, bills of particulars and discovery of the names of prosecution witnesses. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, §§ 114-2, 114-9, 114-10 (1971). Pretrial statements of prosecution witnesses may also be obtained for use for impeachment purposes. See, e. g., People v. Johnson, 31 Ill. 2d 602, 203 N. E. 2d 399 (1964).
We accordingly agree with the conclusion of the Illinois Supreme Court, “On this scale of probabilities, we judge that the lack of counsel at a preliminary hearing involves less danger to 'the integrity of the truth-determining process at trial’ than the omission of counsel at the trial itself or on appeal. Such danger is not ordinarily greater, we consider, at a preliminary hearing at which the accused is unrepresented than at a pretrial line-up or at an interrogation conducted without presence of an attorney.” 46 Ill. 2d, at 207, 263 N. E. 2d, at 494.
We turn then to weighing the probabilities that the denial of counsel at the preliminary hearing will infect the integrity of the factfinding process at trial against the prior justified reliance upon the old standard and the impact of retroactivity upon the administration of justice. We do not think that law enforcement authorities are to be faulted for not anticipating Coleman. There was no clear foreshadowing of that rule. A contrary inference was not unreasonable in light of our decisions in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52, and White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59 (1963). Hamilton denominated the arraignment stage in Alabama critical because defenses not asserted at that stage might be forever lost. White held that an uncounseled plea of guilty at a Maryland preliminary hearing could not be introduced by the State at trial. Many state courts not unreasonably regarded Hamilton and White as fashioning limited constitutional rules governing preliminary hearings. See, e. g., the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Morris, 30 Ill. 2d 406, 197 N. E. 2d 433. Moreover, a number of courts, including all of the federal courts of appeals had concluded that the preliminary hearing was not a critical stage entitling an accused to the assistance of counsel. It is thus clear there has been understandable and widespread reliance upon this view by law enforcement officials and the courts.
It follows that retroactive application of Coleman “would seriously disrupt the administration of our criminal laws.” Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S., at 731. At the very least, the processing of current criminal calendars would be disrupted while hearings were conducted to determine whether the denial of counsel at the preliminary hearing constituted harmless error. Cf. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S., at 300. The task of conducting such hearings would be immeasurably complicated by the need to construct a record of what occurred. In Illinois, for example, no court reporter was present at pre-Coleman preliminary hearings and the proceedings are therefore not recorded. See People v. Givans, 83 Ill. App. 2d 423, 228 N. E. 2d 123 (1967). In addition, relief from this constitutional error would require not merely a new trial but also, at least in Illinois, a new preliminary hearing and a new indictment. The impact upon the administration of the criminal law of that requirement needs no elaboration. Therefore, here also, “[t]he unusual force of the countervailing considerations strengthens our con-elusion in favor of prospective application.” Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 299.
We do not regard petitioner’s case as calling for a contrary conclusion merely because he made a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, or because his conviction is before us on direct review. “[T]he factors of reliance and burden on the administration of justice [are] entitled to such overriding significance as to make [those] distinction [s] unsupportable.” Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 300-301. Petitioner makes no claim of actual prejudice constituting a denial of due process. Such a claim would entitle him to a hearing without regard to today’s holding that Coleman is not to be retroactively applied. See People v. Bernatowicz, 35 Ill. 2d 192, 198, 220 N. E. 2d 745, 748 (1966); People v. Bonner, 37 Ill. 2d 553, 561, 229 N. E. 2d 527, 532 (1967).
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Illinois Supreme Court stated, 46 Ill. 2d, at 205-206, 263 N. E. 2d, at 493,
“A preliminary hearing in Alabama, as in Illinois, has the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed by the defendant .... In both States the hearing is not a required step in the process of prosecution, as the prosecutor may seek an indictment directly from the grand jury, thereby eliminating the proceeding. ... In neither State is a defendant required to offer defenses at the hearing at the risk of being precluded from raising them at the trial itself. . . . We conclude that the preliminary hearing procedures of Alabama and Illinois are substantially alike and we must consider because of Coleman v. Alabama . . . that a preliminary hearing conducted pursuant to section 109-3 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 109-3) is a 'critical stage’ in this State’s criminal process so as to entitle the accused to the assistance of counsel.”
A right to a preliminary hearing has been constitutionally established, effective July 1, 1971. Illinois Constitution of 1970, Art. I, §7.
Accord: Phillips v. North Carolina, 433 F. 2d 659, 662 (1970), where the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit observed:
“To be sure, if a preliminary hearing is held, the accused gains important rights and advantages that can be effectively exercised only through his attorney. Counsel’s function, however, differs from his function at trial. Broadly speaking, his role at the preliminary hearing is to advise, observe, discover the facts, and probe the state’s case. In this respect he serves in somewhat the same capacity as counsel at lineups and interrogations, which are both pretrial stages of criminal proceedings where the right to counsel has not been held retroactive.”
Pagan Cancel v. Delgado, 408 F. 2d 1018 (CA1 1969); United States ex rel. Cooper v. Reincke, 333 F. 2d 608 (CA2 1964); United States ex rel. Budd v. Maroney, 398 F. 2d 806 (CA3 1968); DeToro v. Pepersack, 332 F. 2d 341 (CA4 1964); Walker v. Wainwright, 409 F. 2d 1311 (CA5 1969); Waddy v. Heer, 383 F. 2d 789 (CA6 1967); Butler v. Burke, 360 F. 2d 118 (CA7 1966); Pope v. Swenson, 395 F. 2d 321 (CA8 1968); Wilson v. Harris, 351 F. 2d 840 (CA9 1965); Latham v. Crouse, 320 F. 2d 120 (CA10 1963); Headen v. Untied States, 115 U. S. App. D. C. 81, 317 F. 2d 145 (1963).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to grant petitioner a hearing upon his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U. S. 437; Cash v. Culver, 358 U. S. 633; McNeal v. Culver, 365 U. S. 109.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) provides that an “action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages” unless the claimant has first exhausted his administrative remedies. The question presented is whether such an action may be maintained when the claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, but did so before substantial progress was made in the litigation.
I
On March 6, 1989, petitioner, proceeding without counsel, lodged a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the United States Public Health Service had caused him serious injuries while “conducting human research and experimentation on prisoners” in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. He invoked the federal court’s jurisdiction under the FTCA and prayed for a judgment of $20 million. App. 3-7.
Four months later, on July 7,1989, petitioner submitted a claim for damages to the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department denied the claim on July 21, 1989. On August 7,1989, petitioner sent a letter to the District Court enclosing a copy of the Department’s denial of his administrative claim and an affidavit in support of an earlier motion for appointment of counsel. Petitioner asked that the court accept the letter “as a proper request, whereas plaintiff can properly commence his legal action accordingly.” Id., at 10.
For reasons that are not entirely clear, the United States was not served with a copy of petitioner’s complaint until July 30, 1990. Id., at 2. On September 19, 1990, the United States moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that petitioner’s action was barred by the 6-month statute of limitation. The motion was based on the assumption that the complaint had been filed on April 15, 1990, when petitioner paid the court filing fees, and that that date was more than six months after the denial of petitioner’s administrative claim. In response to the motion, petitioner submitted that the complaint was timely because his action had been commenced on March 6, 1989, the date when he actually lodged his complaint and the Clerk assigned it a docket number.
The District Court accepted March 6, 1989, as the operative date of filing, but nonetheless granted the Government’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner’s suit was not out of time, the District Court reasoned, but, rather, premature. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an action "commenced before satisfaction of the administrative exhaustion requirement under § 2675(a).” Id., at 21.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained:
“According to 28 U. S. C. § 2401(b), a tort claim against the United States must be ‘begun within six months after the date of mailing ... of notice of final denial of the claim by the ageney to which it was presented.’ The administrative denial was mailed on July 21, 1989, so McNeil had between then and January 21, 1990, to begin his action. The complaint filed in March 1989 was too early. This left two options. Perhaps the document filed in March 1989 loitered on the docket, springing into force when the agency acted. Or perhaps the request for counsel in August 1989, during the six-month period, marks the real ‘beginning’ of the action. The district court rejected both options, and McNeil, with the assistance of counsel appointed by this court, renews the arguments here.
“March 1989 was too early. The suit did not linger, awaiting administrative action. Unless McNeil began a fresh suit within six months after July 21, 1989, he loses.” 964 F. 2d 647, 648-649 (1992).
The court reviewed the materials filed in August 1989 and concluded that the District Court had not committed plain error in refusing to construe them as having commenced a new action.
Because decisions in other Circuits permit a prematurely filed FTCA action to proceed if no substantial progress has taken place in the litigation before the administrative remedies are exhausted, see Kubrick v. United States, 581 F. 2d 1092, 1098 (CA3 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 444 U. S. 111 (1979), and Celestine v. Veterans Administration Hospital, 746 F. 2d 1360, 1363 (CA8 1984), we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 506 U. S. 1074 (1993).
II
As the ease comes to us, we assume that the Court of Appeals correctly held that nothing done by petitioner after the denial of his administrative claim on July 21, 1989, constituted the commencement of a new action. The narrow question before us is whether his action was timely either because it was commenced when he lodged his complaint with the District Court on March 6, 1989, or because it should be viewed as having been “instituted” on the date when his administrative claim was denied.
The text of the statute requires rejection of the first possibility. The command that an “action shall not be instituted . . . unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail” is unambiguous. We are not free to rewrite the statutory text. As of March 6,1989, petitioner had neither presented his claim to the Public Health Service, nor had his claim been “finally denied” by that agency. As the Court of Appeals held, petitioner’s complaint was filed too early.
The statutory text does' not speak with equal clarity to the argument that petitioner’s subsequent receipt of a formal denial from the agency might be treated as the event that “instituted” his action. Petitioner argues the word “instituted” that is used in § 2675(a), see n. 1, supra, is not synonymous with the word “begun” in § 2401(b), see n. 4, supra, or with the word “commence” as used in certain other statutes and rules. See, e. g., Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U. S. 20 (1989). He suggests that an action is not “instituted” until the occurrence of the events that are necessary predicates to the invocation of the court’s jurisdiction— namely, the filing of his complaint and the formal denial of the administrative claim. This construction, he argues, is consistent with the underlying purpose of § 2675(a): As long as no substantial progress has been made in the litigation by the time the claimant has exhausted his administrative remedies, the federal agency will have had a fair opportunity to investigate and possibly settle the claim before the parties must assume the burden of costly and time-consuming litigation.
We find this argument unpersuasive. In its statutory context, we think the normal interpretation of the word “institute” is synonymous with the words “begin” and “commence.” The most natural reading of the statute indicates that Congress intended to require complete exhaustion of Executive remedies before invocation of the judicial process. Every premature filing of an action under the FTCA imposes some burden on the judicial system and on the Department of Justice which must assume the defense of such actions. Although the burden may be slight in an individual ease, the statute governs the processing of a vast multitude of claims. The interest in orderly administration of this body of litigation is best served by adherence to the straightforward statutory command.
Moreover, given the clarity of the statutory text, it is certainly not a “trap for the unwary.” It is no doubt true that there are eases in which a litigant proceeding without counsel may make a fatal procedural error, but the risk that a lawyer will be unable to understand the exhaustion requirement is virtually nonexistent. Our rules of procedure are based on the assumption that litigation is normally conducted by lawyers. While we have insisted that the pleadings prepared by prisoners who do not have access to counsel be liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 106 (1976), and have held that some procedural rules must give way because of the unique circumstance of incarceration, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U. S. 266 (1988) (pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal deemed filed at time of delivery to prison authorities), we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. As we have noted before, “in the long run, experience teaches that strict adherence to the procedural requirements specified by the legislature is the best guarantee of evenhanded administration of the law.” Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U. S. 807, 826 (1980).
The FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies. Because petitioner failed to heed that clear statutory command, the District Court properly dismissed his suit.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2675(a) provides, in pertinent part:
“An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail. The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section.”
Petitioner sought damages of $500,000 in his administrative claim, not the $20 million for which he prayed in his earlier federal court action. Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2675(b), a claimant is barred from seeking in federal court “any sum in excess of the amount of the claim presented to the federal agency.” That is, had petitioner properly filed an action in district court after his administrative claim was denied, he would have been limited in his recovery to $500,000.
Entries in the District Court docket indicate that plaintiff had previously filed a motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis, that later in August he filed a motion for appointment of counsel, and that he ultimately paid a filing fee that caused the District Court to dismiss the motion for leave to file in forma pauperis as moot. In all events, in April 1990, the District Court ordered service to be effected by a United States Marshal “because plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeding pro se.” App. 1.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2401(b) provides:
“A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appi’opriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within six months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the ageney to which it was presented.”
In dissent, Judge Ripple expressed the opinion that petitioner had properly raised the issue in the District Court and on appeal, 964 F. 2d, at 649, n. 1, and that in any event it was “clear that the plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, attempted to refile the action after the denial of the administrative claim.” Id., at 649. Our grant of certiorari did not encompass the question whether a new action had been filed in August and we therefore express no opinion as to the correctness of the Court of Appeals’ ruling on that issue.
Decisions in the Fifth and Ninth Circuits agree with the position taken in the Seventh Circuit in this case. See Gregory v. Mitchell, 684 F. 2d 199, 204 (CA5 1981); Reynolds v. United States, 748 F. 2d 291, 292 (CA5 1984); Jerves v. United States, 966 F. 2d 517, 521 (CA9 1992).
Prior to 1966, FTCA claimants had the option of filing suit in federal court without first presenting their claims to the appropriate federal agency. Moreover, federal agencies had only limited authority to settle claims. See Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, ch. 753, §§ 403(a), 420, 60 Stat. 843, 845. Because the vast majority of claims ultimately were settled before trial, the Department of Justice proposed that Congress amend the FTCA to "requir[e] all claims to be presented to the appropriate agency for consideration and possible settlement before a court action could be instituted. This procedure would make it possible for the claim first to be considered by the agency whose employee's activity allegedly caused the damage. That agency would have the best information concerning the activity which gave rise to the claim. Since it is the one directly concerned, it can be expected that claims which are found to be meritorious can be settled more quickly without the need for filing suit and possible expensive and time-consuming litigation.” S. Rep. No. 1327, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1966).
The Senate Judiciary Committee further noted that “the improvements contemplated by [the 1966 amendments] would not only benefit private litigants, but would also be beneficial to the courts, the agencies, and the Department of Justice itself” Id., at 2.
Even petitioner concedes that at least one objective of the 1966 amendments to the FTCA was to “reduce unnecessary congestion in the courts.” Id., at 4. See Brief for Petitioner 24.
Again, the question whether the Court of Appeals should have liberally construed petitioner’s letter of August 7,1989, as instituting a new action is not before us. See n. 5, supra.
Indeed, we have previously recognized a systemic interest in having a parly represented by independent counsel even when the party is a lawyer. See Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U. S. 432 (1991).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.