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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Following petitioner’s trial in the Circuit Court for Parke County, Indiana, under a two-count affidavit charging him with reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter, the jury returned a verdict reciting only that he was guilty of reckless homicide. Petitioner was sentenced to one to five years in prison and was fined $500 plus court costs. He appealed, and the Supreme Court of Indiana granted a new trial. Petitioner was retried on both counts, and the second jury returned the same verdict as the first. He was again sentenced to one to five years in prison but was fined only $100 plus court costs. The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed this reckless homicide conviction, rejecting petitioner’s contention that his retrial on the involuntary manslaughter count had subjected him to double jeopardy in violation of the Indiana and United States Constitutions.
Asserting that the first jury’s silence with respect to the manslaughter charge amounted to an acquittal under Indiana law and that his retrial on that charge placed him twice in jeopardy, compare Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, petitioner, in his petition for certiorari which we granted, presented a single question: Is the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against placing an accused in double jeopardy applicable to state court prosecutions under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Because of the following considerations, which have more clearly emerged after full briefing and oral argument, we do not reach the issue posed by the petitioner and dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.
1. The Indiana statutes define involuntary manslaughter as the killing of “any human being ... involuntarily in the commission of some unlawful act.” Ind. Stat. Ann. § 10-3405 (1956). The statutory penalty is two to 21 years’ imprisonment. The crime of reckless homicide, created in 1939 as part of Indiana’s comprehensive trafile code, is committed by anyone “who drives a vehicle with reckless disregard for the safety of others and thereby causes the death of another person.” Ind. Stat. Ann. § 47-2001 (a) (1965). For this crime, a fine and a prison term of from one to five years are authorized.
Recognizing the inherent overlap between these two crimes in cases of vehicular homicide, the Indiana Legislature has provided that
“[A] final judgment of conviction of one [1] of them shall be a bar to a prosecution for the other; or if they are joined in separate counts of the same indictment or affidavit, and if there is a conviction for both offenses, a penalty shall be imposed for one [1] offense only.” Ind. Stat. Ann. § 47-2002 (1965).
The Indiana courts have also recognized that reckless homicide “is a form of involuntary manslaughter,” Rogers v. State, 227 Ind. 709, 715, 88 N. E. 2d 755, 758. Proof of reckless homicide necessarily establishes an unlawful killing that amounts to involuntary manslaughter. Both crimes require proof of the same elements to sustain a conviction under Indiana law. See Rogers v. State, supra; State v. Beckman, 219 Ind. 176, 37 N. E. 2d 531. Thus, the effect of charging the two crimes in a single affidavit, as occurred in this case, was to give the jury the discretion to set the range of petitioner’s sentence at two to 21 years by convicting him of involuntary manslaughter or at one to five years by convicting him of reckless homicide. As the Indiana Supreme Court in the case before us explained, “[t]he offenses here involved are statutorily treated more as one offense with different penalties rather than viewing reckless homicide as an included offense in involuntary manslaughter.” - Ind. -, -, 208 N. E. 2d 685, 688.
2. Petitioner does not assert that he should not have been tried again for reckless homicide. His only claim is that he should not have been tried again for involuntary manslaughter as well as reckless homicide because the jury’s silence at his first trial with respect to involuntary manslaughter was legally an acquittal on this charge.
However, the Indiana Supreme Court squarely rejected this interpretation of the first jury’s verdict. The court distinguished a long line of Indiana cases which have held that a jury’s silence must be deemed an acquittal. Because of the identity of the elements of these two crimes, and because the Indiana Supreme Court knew of “the trial court practice of telling the jury to return a verdict on only one of the charges in view of the limitation on penalty,” id., at -, 208 N. E. 2d, at 687, the court concluded that “a verdict of guilty of reckless homicide does not logically exclude the possibility of such a verdict on the charge of involuntary manslaughter.” Id., at -, 208 N. E. 2d, at 688-689. Therefore, “[T]he logic of the principle which states silence is equal to an acquittal is perhaps made inappropriate to charges of these offenses, related to the same unlawful transaction .... Rather than treat the silence of the jury in the involuntary manslaughter count in this case as an acquittal, the better result would seem to be to hold that the reckless homicide verdict encompassed the elements of involuntary manslaughter, and that appellant was simply given the lesser penalty.” Id., at -, 208 N. E. 2d, at 687.
In the light of the Indiana statutory scheme and the rulings of the Indiana Supreme Court in this case, we cannot accept petitioner’s assertions that the first jury acquitted him of the charge of involuntary manslaughter and that the second trial therefore placed him twice in jeopardy. Consequently, we do not reach or decide the question tendered by the petition for certiorari, and the writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
While concurring in the Court’s opinion, Mr. Justice Blac adheres to his dissent in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121, 150, to the effect that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the States.
“[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U. S. Const., Amend. 5. “No person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” Ind. Const., Art. I, § 14.
Indiana adopted the common-law crime of involuntary manslaughter early in its history. The crime has traditionally been applied by the Indiana courts to cases of vehicular accidents resulting in death. E. g., Smith v. State, 186 Ind. 252, 115 N. E. 943 (auto accident); State v. Dorsey, 118 Ind. 167, 20 N. E. 777 (railroad accident).
This doctrine developed in response to contentions that silence on any count, required the setting aside of the entire verdict under the common-law rule that a defendant has an absolute right to a jury verdict on all charges for which he is tried. See Weinzorpflin v. State, 7 Blackf. 186 (Ind. 1844). Since a reckless homicide conviction is a statutory bar to further prosecution for involuntary manslaughter, § 47-2002, supra, petitioner cannot be adversely affected by the jury’s silence with respect to the involuntary manslaughter count.
The judge’s charge to the jury in the first trial is not a part of the record in this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether pretrial detainees have a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution to contact visits and to observe shakedown searches of their cells by prison officials.
I
Los Angeles County Central Jail is one of seven principal facilities operated by the Sheriff of Los Angeles County. The three-story jail complex, located in downtown Los Ange-les, is the largest jail in the country, with a capacity of over 5,000 inmates. It is the primary facility in Los Angeles County for male pretrial detainees, the vast majority of whom remain at the facility at most a few days or weeks while they await trial.
In 1975, respondents, pretrial detainees at Central Jail, brought a class action under 42 U. S. C. §§1983, 1985, against the County Sheriff, certain administrators of Central Jail, and the County Board of Supervisors, challenging various policies and practices of the jail and conditions of their confinement. Only respondents’ challenges to the policy of the jail denying pretrial detainees contact visits with their spouses, relatives, children, and friends, and to the jail’s practice of permitting irregularly scheduled shakedown searches of individual cells in the absence of the cell occupants are before this Court. The District Court sustained both of these challenges. Rutherford v. Pitchess, 457 F. Supp. 104 (CD Cal. 1978).
The District Court agreed with respondents that “the ability of a man to embrace his wife and his children from time to time during the weeks or months while he is awaiting trial is a matter of great importance to him,” id., at 110, yet it recognized that “unrestricted contact visitation would add greatly” to security problems at the jail. Ibid. The court ultimately concluded, however, that the danger of permitting low security risk inmates to have “physical contact with their loved ones” was not sufficiently great to warrant deprivation of such contact. Ibid. Striking what it believed was a “reasonable balance” between the twin considerations of prison security and the constitutional rights of the inmates, the court tentatively proposed to order contact visitation for those inmates who “have received other than high risk classification,” and who have been incarcerated for more than two weeks. Ibid.
With respect to the cell searches, the District Court concluded that allowing inmates to watch from a distance while their cells are searched would allay inmate concerns that their personal property will be unnecessarily confiscated or destroyed. The court concluded that “[fjuture shakedowns should be made while the respective inmates remain outside their cells but near enough to observe the process and raise or answer any relevant inquiry.” Id., at 116. The District Court viewed both of its proposed orders as “the least restrictive alternatives consistent with the purpose of [respondents’] incarceration.” Id., at 108.
The District Court withheld judgment on all of respondents’ complaints pending further evidentiary hearings. In its supplemental memorandum following the additional hearings, the court acknowledged that “many factors strongly militate against the allowing of contact visits,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 32, not the least of which being that “establishment of any program of contact visits [would] increase the importation of narcotics into [the] jail, despite all safeguards and precautions.” Id., at 31. The court again emphasized that if all or most of the inmates were allowed contact visits, a “great burden” would be imposed on the jail authorities and the public. Ibid. Modification of existing visiting areas, if not additional facilities, would be necessary. New procedures for processing visitors — possibly including interviews, personal searches, and searches of all packages carried by the visitors — would be required. Strip searches of inmates following contact visits would be needed.
The court found that the “hardship” on detainees of being unable to “embrace their loved ones” for only a few days or a few weeks could not justify imposition of these substantial burdens. Id., at 32. However, the court believed, the factors rendering contact visitation impracticable for detainees incarcerated for short periods are considerably less compelling when detention is prolonged.
The court reasoned that “the scope, burden and dangers of [a] program [of contact visitation] would be substantially diminished” were contact visitation limited to detainees “who have been in uninterrupted custody for a month or more and who are not determined to be drug oriented or escape risks,” and a ceiling imposed on the total number of contact visits that the jail must provide. Id., at 33 (emphasis added). With these limitations, the court suggested, a contact visitation program would require only “[m]odest alteration” of the existing facility. Ibid. Alternatively, the court said, the Sheriff could build or occupy a new facility for contact visits and transport inmates back and forth, as necessary.
The District Court also reaffirmed in the supplemental memorandum its earlier conclusion that inmates should be allowed to observe cell searches. The court believed that the interests of the inmates “in protecting their meager possessions outweigh[ed] the small increase in the burden upon the [petitioners].” Id., at 36.
On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for consideration in light of our intervening decision in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520 (1979), noting, among other things, that we rejected in Wolfish the suggestion that existence of less restrictive means for achievement of security objectives is proof of an exaggerated response to security concerns. App. to Pet. for Cert. 17.
The District Court on remand reaffirmed its prior orders, “[finding] nothing in Bell v. Wolfish that rendered] inappropriate any of the . . . challenged orders.” Id., at 24. Although the court acknowledged that the Central Jail authorities were not “consciously motivated by a desire to punish,” it reiterated its belief that the practices and policies in question were “excessive” in relation to the underlying security objectives. Id., at 25. It characterized petitioners’ rejection of all proposals for contact visitation as an “overreaction,” id., at 26, which “stem[med] from an unreasonable fixation upon security,” id., at 25.
The District Court conceded that Wolfish invalidated a similar order requiring that detainees be allowed to observe searches of their cells, but it went on to identify several factors that it thought distinguished its order from that in Wolfish.
On petitioner’s second appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s orders requiring that certain of the detainees be allowed contact visits and that inmates be allowed to watch searches of their cells. Rutherford v. Pitchess, 710 F. 2d 572 (1983). The Court of Appeals held that the District Court’s order on contact visitation “fits harmoniously within [the] pattern” of federal cases following Wolfish “recognizing] the important security interests of the [penal] institution but at the same time recognizing] the psychological and punitive effects which the prolonged loss of contact visitation has upon detainees . . . 710 F. 2d, at 577. It suggested that a blanket prohibition of contact visits for all detainees would be an “unreasonable, exaggerated response to security concerns.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals also rejected petitioners’ contention that Wolfish precluded an order that pretrial detainees be permitted to observe cell searches. The Court of Appeals, as had the District Court, identified “significant differences” between the order invalidated in Wolfish and that entered by the District Court.
We granted certiorari because of both the importance of the issue to the administration of detention facilities and the conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals. 464 U. S. 959 (1983). We reverse.
II
The administration of seven separate jail facilities for a metropolitan area of more than seven million people is a task of monumental proportions. Housed in these facilities annually are 200,000 persons awaiting trial and confined because they are unable to meet the requirements for release on bail. Generalizations are of little value, but no one familiar with even the barest outline of the problems of the administration of a prison or jail, or with the administration of criminal justice, could fail to be aware of the ease with which one can obtain release on bail or personal recognizance. The very fact of nonrelease pending trial thus is a significant factor bearing on the security measures that are imperative to proper administration of a detention facilitv.
Four Terms ago, in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520 (1979), we considered for the first time, in light of these security concerns, the scope of constitutional protection that must be accorded pretrial detainees. The respondents in Wolfish challenged numerous conditions of their confinement at the pretrial detention facility in New York City and various policies and practices of that institution. We held that, where it is alleged that a pretrial detainee has been deprived of liberty without due process, the dispositive inquiry is whether the challenged condition, practice, or policy constitutes punishment, “[fjor under the Due Process Clause, a detainee must not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law.” Id., at 535 (footnote omitted).
In addressing the particular challenges in Wolfish, we carefully outlined the principles to be applied in evaluating the constitutionality of conditions of pretrial detention. Specifically, we observed that “[a] court must decide whether the disability is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other legitimate governmental purpose.” Id., at 538 (citation omitted). Absent proof of intent to punish, we noted, this determination “generally will turn on ‘whether an alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned [to it].’” Ibid, (quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 168-169 (1963)). We concluded:
“[I]f a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to ‘punishment.’ Conversely, if a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal — if it is arbitrary or purposeless — a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees.” 441 U. S., at 539 (footnote and citation omitted).
In setting forth these guidelines, we reaffirmed the very limited role that courts should play in the administration of detention facilities. In assessing whether a specific restriction is “reasonably related” to security interests, we said, courts should
“heed our warning that ‘[s]uch considerations are peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials, and, in the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated their response to these considerations courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in such matters.’” Id., at 540-541, n. 23 (quoting Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817, 827 (1974)).
We also cautioned:
“[P]rison administrators [are to be] accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” 441 U. S. at 547 (citing cases).
The principles articulated in Wolfish govern resolution of this case.
Ill
A
Petitioners’ first contention is that it was error to conclude that even low risk detainees incarcerated for more than a month are constitutionally entitled to contact visits from friends and relatives. Petitioners maintain, as they have throughout these proceedings that, in the interest of institutional and public security, it is within their discretion as officials of a detention facility to impose an absolute prohibition on contact visits. The District Court did not find, nor did the Court of Appeals suggest, that the purpose of petitioners’ policy of denying contact visitation is to punish the inmates. To the contrary, the District Court found that petitioners are fully cognizant of the possible value of contact visitation, and it commended petitioners for their conscientious efforts to accommodate the large numbers of inmates at Central Jail.
The question before us, therefore, is narrow: whether the prohibition of contact visits is reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives. More particularly, because there is no dispute that internal security of detention facilities is a legitimate governmental interest, our inquiry is simply whether petitioners’ blanket prohibition on contact visits at Central Jail is reasonably related to the security of that facility.
That there is a valid, rational connection between a ban on contact visits and internal security of a detention facility is too obvious to warrant extended discussion. The District Court acknowledged as much. Contact visits invite a host of security problems. They open the institution to the introduction of drugs, weapons, and other contraband. Visitors can easily conceal guns, knives, drugs, or other contraband in countless ways and pass them to an inmate unnoticed by even the most vigilant observers. And these items can readily be slipped from the clothing of an innocent child, or transferred by other visitors permitted close contact with inmates.
Contact visitation poses other dangers for a detention facility, as well. Detainees — by definition persons unable to meet bail — often are awaiting trial for serious, violent offenses, and many have prior criminal convictions. Exposure of this type person to others, whether family, friends, or jail administrators, necessarily carries with it risks that the safety of innocent individuals will be jeopardized in various ways. They may, for example, be taken as hostages or become innocent pawns in escape attempts. It is no answer, of course, that we deal here with restrictions on pretrial detainees rather than convicted criminals. For, as we observed in Wolfish, in this context, “[t]here is no basis for concluding that pretrial detainees pose any lesser security risk than convicted inmates.” 441 U. S., at 546, n. 28. Indeed, we said, “it may be that in certain circumstances [detainees] present a greater risk to jail security and order.” Ibid.
The District Court and Court of Appeals held that totally disallowing contact visits is excessive in relation to the security and other interests at stake. We reject this characterization. There are many justifications for denying contact visits entirely, rather than attempting the difficult task of establishing a program of limited visitation such as that imposed here. It is not unreasonable to assume, for instance, that low security risk detainees would be enlisted to help obtain contraband or weapons by their fellow inmates who are denied contact visits. Additionally, identification of those inmates who have propensities for violence, escape, or drug smuggling is a difficult if not impossible task, and the chances of mistaken identification are substantial. The burdens of identifying candidates for contact visitation — glossed over by the District Court — are made even more difficult by the brevity of detention and the constantly changing nature of the inmate population. Or a complete prohibition could reasonably be thought necessary because selectively allowing contact visits to some — even if feasible — could well create tension between those allowed contact visits and those not.
In Wolfish, we sustained against a Fourth Amendment challenge the practice of conducting routine body cavity searches following contact visits, even though there had been only one reported attempt to smuggle contraband into the facility in a body cavity. 441 U. S., at 558-560. The purpose of the cavity searches in Wolfish was to discover and deter smuggling of weapons and contraband, which was found to be a byproduct of contact visits. Given the security demands and the need to protect not only other inmates but also the facility’s personnel, we did not regard full body cavity searches as excessive. Petitioners’ flat prohibition on contact visits cannot be considered a more excessive response to the same security objectives. See id., at 559-560, n. 40. In any event, we have emphasized that we are unwilling to substitute our judgment on these difficult and sensitive matters of institutional administration and security for that of “the persons who are actually charged with and trained in the running,” id., at 562, of such facilities. In sum, we conclude that petitioners’ blanket prohibition is an entirely reasonable, nonpunitive response to the legitimate security concerns identified, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.
The District Court acknowledged that “many factors strongly militate against the allowing of contact visits.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 32. The court appears to have accepted petitioners’ testimony that contact visits significantly increase the possibility that there will be breaches of security and that the safety of others will be placed in jeopardy. It noted that, “despite all safeguards and precautions,” id., at 31, any program of contact visitation would inevitably increase importation of narcotics into the jail. We can take judicial notice that the unauthorized use of narcotics is a problem that plagues virtually every penal and detention center in the country. While explicitly acknowledging the security risks that inhere in even a limited program of contact visitation, the District Court nonetheless invalidated petitioners’ practice of denying contact visitation.
On this record, we must conclude that the District Court simply misperceived the limited scope of judicial inquiry under Wolfish. When the District Court found that many factors counseled against contact visits, its inquiry should have ended. The court’s further “balancing” resulted in an impermissible substitution of its view on the proper administration of Central Jail for that of the experienced administrators of that facility. Here, as in Wolfish, “[i]t is plain from [the] opinions that the lower courts simply disagreed with the judgment of [the jail] officials about the extent of the security interests affected and the means required to further those interests.” 441 U. S., at 554.
In rejecting the District Court’s order, we do not in any sense denigrate the importance of visits from family or friends to the detainee. Nor do we intend to suggest that contact visits might not be a factor contributing to the ultimate reintegration of the detainee into society. We hold only that the Constitution does not require that detainees be allowed contact visits when responsible, experienced administrators have determined, in their sound discretion, that such visits will jeopardize the security of the facility.
B
It has been the petitioners’ practice, as it is of all such facilities, to conduct irregular or random “shakedown” searches of the cells of detainees while the detainees are away at meals, recreation, or other activities. Respondents do not dispute the need for these searches; they challenge the searches only to the extent that detainees are not permitted to observe them.
Petitioners respond that their method of conducting cell searches is a security measure virtually identical to that chai-lenged in Wolfish. See 441 U. S., at 555-557. We agree. The Court described the practice in Wolfish as follows:
“The MCC staff conducts unannounced searches of inmate living areas at irregular intervals. These searches generally are formal unit ‘shakedowns’ during which all inmates are cleared of the residential units, and a team of guards searches each room. . . . [IJnmates [are] not permitted to watch the searches.” Id., at 555.
The search practices described are essentially identical to those employed at Central Jail, see n. 1, supra.
Respondents attempt to distinguish Wolfish principally on the ground that the District Court’s order invalidated in Wolfish rested on the Fourth Amendment, while the District Court’s order here was predicated on its holding that searches in the absence of the detainees violate their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We did hold in Wolfish that the room search rule challenged did not violate the Fourth Amendment. But we also explicitly rejected the contention that the room search rule, including the feature of the rule prohibiting observation of the searches by the detainees, violated the detainees’ due process rights:
“Nor do we think that the four MCC security restrictions and practices described in Part III, supra [one of which was the rule permitting room searches in the absence of the detainees] constitute ‘punishment’ in violation of the rights of pretrial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” 441U. S., at 560-561 (footnote omitted).
We held that all of the restrictions “were reasonable responses by [the] officials to legitimate security concerns.” Id., at 561.
Thus, contrary to respondents’ suggestion, we have previously considered not only a Fourth Amendment challenge but also a due process challenge to a room search procedure almost identical to that used at Central Jail, and we sustained the practice on both scores. We have no reason to reconsider that issue; the identical arguments made by respondents here were advanced by the respondents in Wolfish. The security concerns that we held justified the same restriction in Wolfish, see id., at 555, n. 36, are no less compelling here. Moreover, we could not have been clearer in our holding in Wolfish that this is a matter lodged in the sound discretion of the institutional officials. We reaffirm that “proper deference to the informed discretion of prison authorities demands that they, and not the courts, make the difficult judgments which reconcile conflicting claims affecting the security of the institution, the welfare of the prison staff, and the property rights of the detainees.” Id., at 557, n. 38.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
When respondents instituted this suit, contact visits were not generally allowed. However, all detainees at Central Jail were allowed unmonitored ‘noncontact visits each day between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. It is estimated that there were over 63,000 such visits each month in an air-conditioned visiting area that accommodates 228 visitors at once. Privacy partitions separated each individual visiting location from the others, and clear glass panels separated the inmates from the visitors, who visit over telephones.
Under the search procedures in effect, searches of cells for contraband and other impermissible items were conducted irregularly while the inmates were away from the cells.
The District Court ordered that petitioners
“make available a contact visit once each week to each pretrial detainee that has been held in the jail for one month or more, and concerning whom there is no indication of drug or escape propensities; provided, however, that no more than fifteen hundred such visits need be allowed in any one week.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 38.
Its order further directed that
“[ijnmates ... in the general area when a ‘shakedown’ inspection of their cells is undertaken ... be permitted to be sufficiently proximate to their respective cells that they may observe the process and respond to such questions or make such requests as circumstances may indicate.” Id., at 40.
Unlike the cell search procedure ordered in Wolfish, said the court, the procedure it ordered would not allow inmates to frustrate the search by “ ‘distracting personnel and moving contraband from one room to another ahead of the search team.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 27 (quoting Wolfish, 441 U. S., at 555). Second, the Court of Appeals in Wolfish had failed to specify the constitutional provision it relied upon to invalidate the cell search rule under review in that case. In contrast, the District Court noted, it had specifically found that a refusal to allow inmates to observe cell searches violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court of Appeals reversed the third order — not in issue here— which had directed jail officials to reinstall the transparent windows in the cells from which they had been removed.
The District Court in this case, said the Court of Appeals, had addressed the concerns of the jail officials — ignored by the District Court in Wolfish — that inmates could frustrate search efforts by distracting personnel and relocating contraband ahead of the search team. The District Court order here allowed officials to remove inmates from their cells, detain them in a dayroom while a cell row is searched, and bring them in individually to observe only the search of their respective cells. Additionally, while the order in Wolfish had rested exclusively on the District Court’s conclusion that the searches were “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, the District Court’s order in this case was based “largely” upon the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.
At least five Circuits have held that pretrial detainees are not constitutionally entitled to contact visits. See Jordan v. Wolke, 615 F. 2d 749 (CA7 1980); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F. 2d 559 (CA10 1980), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 1041 (1981); Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 612 F. 2d 754 (CA3 1979); Feeley v. Sampson, 570 F. 2d 364 (CA1 1978); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F. 2d 1405 (CA4 1975) (per curiam). The Ninth Circuit in this case, and the Second and Fifth Circuits have held that the Constitution does require contact visits for detainees, at least in certain contexts. See Marcara v. Chinlund, 595 F. 2d 1231 (CA2), vacated and remanded sub nom. Lombard v. Marcera, 442 U. S. 915 (1979); Jones v. Diamond, 636 F. 2d 1364 (CA5), cert. granted sub nom. Ledbetter v. Jones, 452 U. S. 959, cert. dism’d, 453 U. S. 950 (1981). Cf. West v. Infante, 707 F. 2d 58 (CA2 1983) (per curiam); Campbell v. McGruder, 188 U. S. App. D. C. 258, 580 F. 2d 521 (1978).
We did not have occasion to address specifically the issue of contact visitation in Wolfish. We did suggest, however, that prohibiting contact visitation might well represent a permissible alternative to the admittedly intrusive body cavity searches there challenged. 441 U. S., at 559-560, n. 40. We subsequently vacated and remanded for consideration in light of Wolfish a Second Circuit decision holding that the denial of contact visits was unconstitutional. Marcera v. Chinlund, 595 F. 2d 1231, vacated and remanded sub nom. Lombard v. Marcera, 442 U. S. 915 (1979). The issue was presented for review in Jones v. Diamond, supra. However, that case was ultimately dismissed pursuant to this Court’s Rule 53. 453 U. S. 950 (1981).
In Wolfish itself, we characterized the maintenance of security, internal order, and discipline as “essential goals,” which at times require the “limitation or retraction of. . . retained constitutional rights.” 441 U. S., at 546. Government, we said, “must be able to take steps to maintain security and order at [an] institution and make certain no weapons or illicit drugs reach detainees.” Id., at 540. See also Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817, 823 (1974).
The reasonableness of petitioners’ blanket prohibition is underscored by the costs — financial and otherwise — of the alternative response ordered by the District Court. Jail personnel, whom the District Court recognized are now free from the “complicated, expensive, and time-consuming process[es]” of interviewing, searching, and processing visitors, App. to Pet. for Cert. 31, would have to be reassigned to perform these tasks, perhaps requiring the hiring of additional personnel. Intrusive strip searches after contact visits would be necessary. Finally, as the District Court noted, at the very least, “modest” improvements of existing facilities would be required to accommodate a contact visitation program if the county did not purchase or build a new facility elsewhere. These are substantial costs that a facility’s administrators might reasonably attempt to avoid.
Petitioners also note that the District Court’s order in this case is indistinguishable in any material respect from that invalidated in Wolfish. This is essentially correct, although the order here is more limited in that it requires only that those detainees in the general vicinity of their cells at the time of the shakedowns, not all detainees, be allowed to observe the search of their cells. In this context, however, where deference to institutional administrators is the touchstone and administrators are not required to employ the least restrictive means available, these are not differences of constitutional magnitude.
The District Court and Court of Appeals also sought to distinguish the order here from that entered in Wolfish on the ground that the order in this case accommodated the institutional concern that inmates not distract personnel during the search and succeed in moving contraband before guards arrive at a particular cell. This factual distinction is without legal significance. In effect, the order here merely attempts to impose on officials the least restrictive means available for accomplishment of their security objectives. We reaffirm that administrative officials are not obliged to adopt the least restrictive means to meet their legitimate objectives. Wolfish, 441 U. S., at 542, n. 25.
To the extent that respondents’ brief in this Court can be read to raise a procedural due process challenge to petitioners’ cell-search procedure — a claim not made in Wolfish — we reject the challenge. The governmental interests in conducting the search in the absence of the detainees, see, e. g., Wolfish, supra, at 555-556, and n. 36 — a complex undertaking under optimal conditions in a 5,000-inmate institution — exceed whatever posses-sory interests of the detainees might be implicated by the search. Moreover, we believe that the risks of erroneous deprivations of property under petitioners’ procedure are minimal.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Murphy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal brings before us § 301 (h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1040,1042, 21 U. S. C. § 331 (h), which prohibits the giving of a false guaranty that any food, drug, device or cosmetic is not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the Act.
Appellee does business in San Diego, California, under the name of Kelp Laboratories. An information has been filed, charging appellee with having given a false guaranty in violation of § 301 (h). The following facts have been alleged: In February, 1943, appellee gave a continuing guaranty to Richard Harrison Products, of Hollywood, California, stating that no products thereafter shipped to the latter would be adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the Act. On February 24, 1945, while the guaranty was in full force and effect, appellee consigned to Richard Harrison Products, at Hollywood, a shipment of vitamin products which were allegedly adulterated and misbranded — thereby making the guaranty false in respect of that shipment. Prior and subsequent to the date of the shipment, Richard Harrison Products was engaged in the business of introducing and delivering for introduction into interstate commerce quantities of the vitamin product supplied by appellee.
Appellee moved to dismiss the information on the ground that it did not state an offense. The argument was that § 301 (h) applies only to a guaranty that is false relative to an interstate shipment, whereas the alleged shipment here was to a consignee within California, the state of origin, and there was no allegation that the consignee purchased the order for someone outside California or that it intended to sell the products in its interstate rather than its intrastate business. The District Court gave an oral opinion sustaining appellee’s contention and granting the motion to dismiss. The case is here on direct appeal by the United States.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act rests upon the constitutional power resident in Congress to regulate interstate commerce. To the end that the public health and safety might be advanced, it seeks to keep interstate channels free from deleterious, adulterated and mis-branded articles of the specified types. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, 280. It is in that interstate setting that the various sections of the Act must be viewed.
But § 301 (h), with which we are concerned, does not speak specifically in interstate terms. It prohibits the “giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in section 303 (c) (2), which guaranty or undertaking is false,” the only exception being as to a false guaranty given by a person who, in turn, relied upon a similar guaranty given by the person from whom he received in good faith the adulterated or misbranded article. Nothing on the face of the section limits its application to guaranties relating to articles introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce. From all that appears, its proscription plainly extends to the giving of any false statutory guaranty, without regard to the interstate or intrastate character of the shipment in question, to those who are engaged in the business of making interstate shipments.
Nor do we find any interstate limitation of the type which appellee proposes in the reference made in § 301 (h) to § 303 (c) (2). That reference is made simply to define the type of guaranty or undertaking the falsification of which is prohibited by § 301 (h). Instead of spelling out the matter, § 301 (h) adopts the reference in § 303 (c) (2) to “a guaranty or undertaking signed by, and containing the name and address of, the person residing in the United States from whom he received in good faith the article, to the effect . . . that such article is not adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this Act, designating this Act . . . The fact that § 303 (c) (2) relieves a holder of such a guaranty from the criminal penalties provided by § 303 (a) for violating § 301 (a) does not carry over the interstate limitation of § 301 (a) to § 301 (h). Section 301 (a) prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of illicit articles, and § 303 (c) (2) relieves one from the liabilities of such introduction if one has a guaranty or undertaking as therein described. Section 301 (h) has adopted that description for the entirely different purpose of informing persons what kind of a guaranty or undertaking may not be given falsely. In other words, § 301 (a) is directed to illegal interstate shipments, while § 301 (h) is directed to the giving of false guaranties. Guaranties as described in § 303 (c) (2) may be used by interstate dealers in connection with either interstate or intrastate shipments and those guaranties that are false are outlawed by § 301 (h).
It is true, of course, that the guaranty referred to in § 303 (c) (2) is one given for the purpose of protecting the dealer “in case of an alleged violation of section 301 (a),” thereby relieving him of liability if he reships adulterated or misbranded goods in interstate commerce. But where such a guaranty, as in this case, is given to a dealer regularly engaged in making interstate shipments and who may therefore have need of the guaranty, § 301 (h) imposes liability on the guarantor if that guaranty turns out to be false. And that liability attaches even where the particular shipment which renders the guaranty false is not alleged to have been an interstate one.
It is significant that § 301 (h) had no counterpart in the predecessor statute, the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, 34 Stat. 768. Under § 9 of that Act, a dealer could not be prosecuted for shipping adulterated or misbranded articles in interstate commerce if he had a guaranty of a type similar to that referred to in the present statute. If there were such a guaranty, the guarantor was subject to the penalties which would otherwise attach to the dealer. The result was that the guarantor was not liable on account of a false guaranty unless the dealer had shipped the prohibited article in interstate commerce. Steinhardt Bros. & Co. v. United States, 191 F. 798, 800; United States v. Charles L. Heinle Specialty Co., 175 F. 299, 300-301. There was no liability for issuing a false guaranty as such to one engaged in an interstate business. But in the 1938 Act, Congress added a new liability in the form of § 301 (h), making the guarantor liable for giving a false guaranty of the type referred to in § 303 (c) (2). We find it impossible to say that the framers of the 1938 Act added § 301 (h) for the useless purpose of achieving the same result as had been reached under the 1906 Act without such a provision.
We thus conclude that § 301 (h) definitely proscribes the giving of a false guaranty to one engaged wholly or partly in an interstate business irrespective of whether that guaranty leads in any particular instance to an illegal shipment in interstate commerce. Such a construction is entirely consistent with the interstate setting of the Act. A manufacturer or processor ordinarily has no way of knowing whether a dealer, whose business includes making interstate sales, will redistribute a particular shipment in interstate or intrastate commerce. But if he guarantees that his product is not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the Act, he clearly intends to assure the dealer that the latter may redistribute the product in interstate commerce without incurring any of the liabilities of the Act. And the dealer is thereby more likely to engage in interstate distribution without making an independent check of the product. The possibility that a false guaranty may give rise to an illegal interstate shipment by such a dealer is strong enough to make reasonable the prohibition of all false guaranties to him, even though some of them may actually result only in intrastate distribution. By this means, some of the evils which Congress sought to eliminate are cut down at their source and the effectiveness of the Act’s enforcement is greatly enhanced.
So construed, § 301 (h) raises no constitutional difficulties. The commerce clause of the Constitution is not to be interpreted so as to deny to Congress the power to make effective its regulation of interstate commerce. Where that effectiveness depends upon a regulation or prohibition attaching regardless of whether the particular transaction in issue is interstate or intrastate in character, a transaction that concerns a business generally engaged in interstate commerce, Congress may act. Such is this case.
The judgment of the District Court is accordingly
Reversed.
Section 301 (h) prohibits “The giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in section 303 (c) (2), which guaranty or undertaking is false, except by a person who relied upon a guaranty or undertaking to the same effect signed by, and containing the name and address of, the person residing in the United States from whom he received in good faith the food, drug, device, or cosmetic; or the giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in section 303 (c) (3), which guaranty or undertaking is false.”
Section 303 (c) (2) provides that no person shall be subject to the penalties of § 303 (a) “for having violated section 301 (a) or (d), if he establishes a guaranty or undertaking signed by, and containing the name and address of, the person residing in the United States from whom he received in good faith the article, to the effect, in case of an alleged violation of section 301 (a), that such article is not adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this Act, designating this Act, or to the effect, in case of an alleged violation of section 301 (d), that such article is not an article which may not, under the provisions of section 404 or 505, be introduced into interstate commerce ...”
Section 301 (a) prohibits “The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In § 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 66 Stat. 214, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1), Congress provided that the Attorney General in his discretion may suspend deportation and adjust the status of an otherwise deportable alien who (1) “has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years”; (2) “is a person of good moral character”; and (3) is “a person whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, result in extreme hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or child... In this case we must decide the meaning of §244(a)(l)’s “continuous physical presence” requirement.
I
Respondent, a native and citizen of Thailand, first entered the United States as a nonimmigrant student in October 1969. Respondent’s husband, also a native and citizen of Thailand, entered the country in August 1968. Respondent and her husband were authorized to remain in the United States until July 1971. However, when their visas expired, they chose to stay without securing permission from the immigration authorities.
In January 1977, petitioner, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), commenced deportation proceedings against respondent and her husband pursuant to § 241(a)(2) of the Act. See 8 U. S. C. § 1251(a)(2). Respondent and her husband conceded deportability and applied for suspension pursuant to § 244(a)(1). 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1). An Immigration Judge found that respondent’s husband had satisfied § 244(a)(l)’s eligibility requirements and suspended his deportation. App. to Pet. for Cert. 29a-31a. But respondent’s own testimony showed that she had left the country during January 1974, and that she had improperly obtained a non-immigrant visa from the United States consular officer in Thailand to aid her reentry three months later. On the basis of this evidence, the Immigration Judge concluded that respondent had failed to meet the 7-year “continuous physical presence” requirement of the Act:
“[Respondent’s] absence was not brief, innocent, or casual. The absence would have been longer than three months if she had not obtained the spouse of a student visa as fast as. she did obtain it. It was not casual because she had to obtain a new Tha[i] passport, as well as a nonimmigrant visa from the American Consul, to return to the United States. It was not innocent because she failed to inform the American Consul that she was the wife of a student who had been out of status for three years (and therefore not entitled to the nonimmi-grant visa she received).” Id., at 28a.
Accordingly, he denied respondent’s application for suspension. Id., at 28a-29a.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision on the “continuous physical presence” issue. BIA observed that respondent was illegally in the United States at the time she left for Thailand and that she was able to return only by misrepresenting her status as the wife of a foreign student. Id., at 17a-18a. Based on these observations, BIA concluded that respondent’s absence was meaningfully interruptive of her continuous physical presence in the United States. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 673 F. 2d 1013 (CA9 1981). It noted that, although respondent traveled to Thailand for three months, “she intended, at all times, to return to the United States.” Id., at 1017. The court held that BIA had placed too much emphasis on respondent’s illegal presence prior to her departure and on the increased risk of deportation that her departure had engendered. Id., at 1017-1018. Finding BIA’s approach legally erroneous, it concluded that
“an absence cannot be ‘meaningfully interruptive’ if two factors are present: (1) the hardships would be as severe if the absence had not occurred, and (2) there would not be an increase in the risk of deportation as a result of the absence.” Id., at 1018, and n. 6 (citing Kamheangpatiyooth v. INS, 597 F. 2d 1253, 1257 (CA9 1979)).
Since BIA failed “to view the circumstances in their totality, and analyze those circumstances in light of the [underlying] Congressional purpose,” 673 F. 2d, at 1017, the court remanded for further proceedings on the “continuous physical presence” issue.
We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 965 (1982), to review the meaning of § 244(a)(l)’s requirement that an otherwise deport-able alien have been “physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years... 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1). We find that the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of this statutory requirement departs from the plain meaning of the Act.
h-t
This Court has noted on numerous occasions that “in all cases involving statutory construction, ‘our starting point must be the language employed by Congress/... and we assume ‘that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used/” American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U. S. 63, 68 (1982), quoting Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 337 (1979), and Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 9 (1962). The language of § 244(a)(1) requires certain threshold criteria to be met before the Attorney General or his delegates, in their discretion, may suspend proceedings against an otherwise deportable alien. This language plainly narrows the class of aliens who may obtain suspension by requiring each applicant for such extraordinary relief to prove that he
“has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the date of such application,... that during all of such period he was and is a person of good moral character; and is a person whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, result in extreme hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence....” 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1).
The ordinary meaning of these words does not readily admit any “exception[s] to the requirement of seven years of ‘continuous physica[l] presence’ in the United States to be eligible for suspension of deportation.” McColvin v. INS, 648 F. 2d 935, 937 (CA4 1981).
By contrast, when Congress in the past has intended for a “continuous physical presence” requirement to be flexibly administered, it has provided the authority for doing so. For example, former § 301(b) of the Act, which required two years of “continuou[s] physica[l] presence]” for maintenance of status as a United States national or citizen, provided that “absence from the United States of less than sixty days in the aggregate during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required shall not break the continuity of such physical presence.” 86 Stat. 1289, repealing 71 Stat. 644 (12-month aggregate absence does not break continuity of physical presence). The deliberate omission of a similar moderating provision in § 244(a)(1) compels the conclusion that Congress meant this “continuous physical presence” requirement to be administered as written.
Indeed, the evolution of the deportation provision itself shows that Congress knew how to distinguish between actual “continuous physical presence” and some irreducible minimum of “nonintermittent” presence. Prior to 1940, the Attorney General had no discretion in ordering deportation, and an alien’s sole remedy was to obtain a private bill from Congress. See INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U. S. 139, 140, and n. 1 (1981). In 1940, Congress authorized the Attorney General to suspend deportation of aliens of good moral character whose deportation “would result in serious economic detriment” to the aliens or their families. See 54 Stat. 672. Then, in 1948, Congress amended the statute again to make the suspension process available to aliens who “resided continuously in the United States for seven years or more” and who could show good moral character for the preceding five years, regardless of family ties. 62 Stat. 1206. Finally, in 1952, “in an attempt to discontinue lax practices and discourage abuses,” Congress replaced the 7-year “continuous residence” requirement with the current 7-year “continuous physical presence” requirement. H. R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 31 (1952). It made the criteria for suspension of deportation more stringent both to restrict the opportunity for discretionary action, see ibid., and to exclude
“aliens [who] are deliberately flouting our immigration laws by the processes of gaining admission into the United States illegally or ostensibly as nonimmigrants but with the intention of establishing themselves in a situation in which they may subsequently have access to some administrative remedy to adjust their status to that of permanent residents.” S. Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, p. 25 (1952).
Had Congress been concerned only with “nonintermittent” presence or with the mere maintenance of a domicile or general abode, it could have retained the “continuous residence” requirement. Instead, Congress expressly opted for the 7-year “continuous physical presence” requirement.
The statutory switch from “continuous residence” to “continuous physical presence” was no simple accident of draftsmanship. Congress broadened the class of aliens eligible for admission to citizenship by requiring only five years’ “continuous residence” and “physical presence” for at least half the period of residency. Concomitantly, it made § 244(a)(1) more restrictive; suspensions of deportations are “grossly unfair to aliens who await abroad their turn on quota waiting lists,” and Congress wanted to limit the number of aliens allowed to remain through discretionary action. The citizenship and suspension-of-deportation provisions are interrelated parts of Congress’ comprehensive scheme for admitting aliens into this country. We do justice to this scheme only by applying the “plain meaning of [§ 244(a)(1)], however severe the consequences.” Jay v. Boyd, 351 U. S. 345, 357 (1956). The Court of Appeals’ inquiry into whether the hardship to be suffered upon deportation has been diminished by the alien’s absence fails to do so.
I — ( t — < HH
Respondent contends that we should approve the Court of Appeals’ “generous” and “liberal” construction of the “continuous physical presence” requirement notwithstanding the statute’s plain language and history. Brief for Respondent 10 (quoting Kamheangpatiyooth v. INS, 597 F. 2d, at 1256, and n. 3). She argues that the Court of Appeals’ construction is in keeping both with our decision in Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963), and with the equitable and ameliorative nature of the suspension remedy. We disagree.
A
In Fleuti, this Court held that a lawful permanent resident alien’s return to the United States after an afternoon trip to Mexico did not constitute an “entry” within the meaning of § 101(a)(13) of the Act. We construed the term “intended” in the statutory exception to the definition of “entry” to mean an “intent to depart in a manner which can be regarded as meaningfully interruptive of the alien’s permanent residence.” Id., at 462. We interpreted the statute not to allow a lawful resident alien like Fleuti to be excluded “for a condition for which he could not have been deported had he remained in the country,” id., at 460, because it would subject the alien to “unsuspected risks and unintended consequences of... wholly innocent action.” Id., at 462. Since Fleuti had gone to Mexico, without travel documents, for only a few hours, we remanded for a determination whether his departure had been “innocent, casual, and brief,” and so not “meaningfully interruptive” of his permanent residence. Id., at 461, 462.
Fleuti is essentially irrelevant to the adjudication of respondent’s § 244(a)(1) suspension application. Fleuti dealt with a statutory exception enacted precisely to ameliorate the harsh effects of prior judicial construction of the “entry” doctrine. See id., at 457-462. By contrast, this case deals with a threshold requirement added to the statute specifically to limit the discretionary availability of the suspension remedy. See supra, at 190-191. Thus, whereas a flexible approach to statutory construction was consistent with the congressional purpose underlying § 101(a)(13), such an approach would not be consistent with the congressional purpose underlying the “continuous physical presence” requirement. Ibid.
In Fleuti, the Court believed that Congress had not considered the “meaningless and irrational hazards” that a strict application of the “entry” provision could create. Thus, it inferred that Congress would not have approved of the otherwise harsh consequences that would have resulted to Fleuti. See 374 U. S., at 460-462. Here, by contrast, we have every reason to believe that Congress considered the harsh consequences of its actions. Congress expressly provided a mechanism for factoring “extreme hardship” into suspension of deportation decisions. We would have to ignore the clear congressional mandate and the plain meaning of the statute to find that Fleuti is applicable to the determination whether an otherwise deportable alien has been “physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years....” 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1). We refuse to do so.
We also note, though it is not essential to our decision, that Fleuti involved the departure of a lawful resident alien who, but for his departure, otherwise had a statutory right to remain in this country. This case, by contrast, deals with the departure of an unlawful alien who could have been deported even had she remained in this country. Such an alien has no basis for expecting the Government to permit her to remain in the United States or to readmit her upon her return from foreign soil. Thus, respondent simply is not being excluded “for a condition for which [she] could not have been deported had [she] remained in the country....” 374 U. S., at 460.
B
Respondent further suggests that we approve the Court of Appeals’ articulation of the “continuous physical presence” standard — that an absence is “meaningfully interruptive” only when it increases the risk and reduces the hardship of deportation — as consistent with the ameliorative purpose of, and the discretion of the Attorney General to grant, the suspension remedy. Brief for Respondent 6-11. Respondent’s suggestion is without merit.
Although § 244(a)(1) serves a remedial purpose, the liberal interpretation respondent suggests would collapse §244 (a)(l)’s “continuous physical presence” requirement into its “extreme hardship” requirement and read the former out of the Act. The language and history of that section suggest that “continuous physical presence” and “extreme hardship” are separate preconditions for a suspension of deportation. See n. 9, supra. It strains the statutory language to construe the “continuous physical presence” requirement as requiring yet a further assessment of hardship.
It is also clear that Congress intended strict threshold criteria to be met before the Attorney General could exercise his discretion to suspend deportation proceedings. Congress drafted §244(a)(l)’s provisions specifically to restrict the opportunity for discretionary administrative action. Respondent’s suggestion that we construe the Act to broaden the Attorney General’s discretion is fundamentally inconsistent with this intent. In INS v. Jong Ha Wang, we rejected a relaxed standard for evaluating the “extreme hardship” requirement as impermissibly shifting discretionary authority from INS to the courts. 450 U. S., at 146. Respondent’s suggestion that we construe the Act to broaden the Attorney General’s discretion analogously would shift authority to relax the “continuous physical presence” requirement from Congress to INS and, eventually, as is evident from the experience in this case, to the courts. We must therefore reject respondent’s suggestion as impermissible in our tripartite scheme of government. Congress designs the immigration laws, and it is up to Congress to temper the laws’ rigidity if it so desires.
IV
The Court of Appeals’ approach ignores the plain meaning of § 244(a)(1) and extends eligibility to aliens whom Congress clearly did not intend to be eligible for suspension of deportation. Congress meant what it said: otherwise deportable aliens must show that they have been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of seven years before they are eligible for suspension of deportation. The judgment of the Court of Appeals therefore is
Reversed.
Justice Brennan, with whom Justice Marshall and Justice Stevens join, concurring in the judgment.
The Court today holds that an unexplained 3-month absence from the United States disqualifies an alien from eligibility for relief from deportation under § 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1), ante, this page, and further, that our decision inRosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963), is essentially irrelevant in the § 244(a)(1) context, ante, at 192-194. I agree with both of these conclusions. In the process of reaching them, however, the Court seems to imply that Congress intended the term “continuous” in the phrase “physically present... for a continuous period” to be interpreted literally, ante, at 189, 195-196. If that is what the Court implies, the status of temporary absences far different from the one at issue in this case — for example, a short vacation in Mexico, see Wadman v. INS, 329 F. 2d 812 (CA9 1964), an inadvertent train ride through Canada while en route from Buffalo to Detroit, see Di Pasquale v. Karnuth, 158 F. 2d 878 (CA2 1947), a trip to one’s native country to tend to an ailing parent, or some other type of temporary absence that has no meaningful bearing on the attachment or commitment an alien has to this country — would presumably be treated no differently from the absence at issue today. Because such absences need not be addressed to decide this case, and, in any event, because I believe that Congress did not intend the continuous-physical-presenee requirement to be read literally, I part company with the Court insofar as a contrary interpretation may be implied.
I
In this case, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) argues that the Court of Appeals has taken too liberal a view of the continuous-physical-presence requirement. It does not argue, however, that the requirement should be interpreted literally; nor does it brief the question whether literally continuous, physical presence should be a prerequisite to suspension of deportation. Indeed, at oral argument, counsel for the INS stated that “the [INS] believes that there is room for flexibility in applying [§ 244(a)(1)].” Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. In light of this express position of the INS, the agency charged with responsibility for administering the immigration laws, as well as the fact that respondent’s unexplained 3-month absence from the United States plainly disqualifies her for relief under any reasonable interpretation of § 244(a)(1), I would not address, by implication or otherwise, the question whether the continuous-physical-presence requirement was meant to be interpreted literally.
II
Moreover, if we are to understand that the Court implicitly approves of a literal interpretation of the statute, the error of its analysis is patent. It is a hornbook proposition that “[a]ll laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language, which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter.” United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 486-487 (1869). See also Helvering v. Hammel, 311 U. S. 504, 510 (1941); United States v. Katz, 271 U. S. 354, 362 (1926). In a case such as this, in which a literal interpretation of a statutory provision may indeed lead to absurd consequences, supra, at 197, we must look beyond the terms of the provision to the underlying congressional intent. And in this case, the legislative history of §244, far from compelling a wooden interpretation of the statutory language, in fact indicates that Congress intended the coritinuous-physical-presence requirement to be interpreted flexibly.
The Court suggests a contrary conclusion based on two factors: First, the fact that Congress enacted the continuous-physical-presence requirement in 1952 in response to abuses of the more lenient “residence” requirement, which had been in effect since 1948; and second, the fact that former § 301(b) of the Act, which imposed a 2-year continuous-physical-presence requirement upon foreign-bom citizens seeking to avoid the loss of their citizenship, explicitly provided that “absence from the United States of less than sixty days... shall not break the continuity of such physical presence. ” Ante, at 189-191. But plainly, neither of these aspects of the Act’s legislative history sheds meaningful light on the issue of whether the term “continuous” should be interpreted literally. It is true, of course, that Congress replaced the “residence” requirement with the continuous-physical-presence requirement in order to prevent abuses, as the Court states, ante, at 190-191, but the abuses identified by Congress are hardly in the nature of a vacation in Mexico, a train ride through Canada, or other similar absences that would defeat eligibility for relief under a literal reading of § 244(a)(1). Instead, Congress sought to prevent much more substantial abuses, such as a situation described in the Senate Report on the Act, in which an alien “has a total of 7 years’ residence in the United States [but] the alien has been out of the United States for as long as 2 years during the last 7 years.” S. Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 602 (1950). Furthermore, although it is true that the 60-day leeway allowed under § 301(b) for foreign-born citizens has no counterpart in § 244(a)(1), this only indicates that Congress was unwilling to provide such generous and unrestricted leeway to aliens seeking suspension of deportation. It surely does not indicate that Congress intended every type of absence — however innocent or brief — to defeat an alien’s eligibility for relief. Finally, as the Court implicitly acknowledges, there is no direct statement in the legislative history of the 1952 Act to indicate that Congress intended to have the term “continuous” interpreted literally. It follows, then, that there is simply no support for giving § 244(a)(1) a literal interpretation.
Indeed, there is direct support for precisely the opposite conclusion in the legislative history of the 1962 amendments to the Act, in which Congress rewrote §244. The current version of §244, which barely resembles the original 1952 provision but which retains the continuous-physical-presence requirement, was enacted as part of those amendments. It is the congressional intent underlying the 1962 amendments, therefore, that is central to the question whether Congress meant to have the continuous-physical-presence requirement applied literally. And the legislative history of those amendments, whether viewed as reflecting the 1952 congressional understanding of the continuous-physical-presence requirement, or as establishing a new understanding in the 1962 revision, reveals an express congressional intent to have the term “continuous” interpreted more flexibly than a literal definition of the term would imply. Moreover, prior to the 1962 amendments, the only Court of Appeals that had occasion to interpret the continuous-physical-presence requirement held that the term “continuous” was not intended to be interpreted literally. McLeod v. Peterson, 283 F. 2d 180 (CA3 1960). In that case, the court reversed a decision of the INS, holding that an 8-month absence from the United States “does not interrupt the continuity of... presence in the United States within the meaning of [§ 244],” under circumstances in which the INS had induced the alien to leave the country without the authority to do so. Id., at 187. In explaining its decision, the court stated that § 244 had “sufficient flexibility to permit a rational effecting of the congressional intent.” Ibid. Of course, when Congress enacts a new law that incorporates language of a pre-existing law, Congress may be presumed to have knowledge of prior judicial interpretations of the language and to have adopted that interpretation for purposes of the new law. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S. 353, 382, n. 66 (1982); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580-581 (1978). Therefore, even in the absence of explicit indications of legislative intent, we would be justified in concluding that Congress intended to have the continuous-physical-presence requirement interpreted flexibly.
In any event, there are explicit indications in the legislative history of the 1962 amendments that Congress did not intend to enact a literal continuous-physical-presence requirement. The 1962 amendments originated as S. 3361. As introduced, the bill contained a provision that would have amended § 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 249, which originated in 1929, allows the Attorney General to confer permanent-residence status upon an alien who meets certain qualifications, such as “good moral character,” and establishes that he or she has resided in the United States since a statutorily provided date. S. 3361, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., §4 (1962). At the time of the 1962 amendments, the operative date was June 28, 1940, and S. 3361, as introduced, would have moved that date up to December 24, 1952. Under the Senate bill, therefore, relief from deportation would have been available to an alien who simply established “residence” since 1952, without regard to whether his or her physical presence in this country was literally continuous. The House, however, declined to amend §249. Instead, the House sent to the Conference Committee a bill that differed from the Senate bill in that it left June 28,1940, as the operative date of entry for relief under that section. 108 Cong. Rec. 22608-22609 (1962). The Conference Committee, however, compromised between the House and Senate versions of the bill by adopting an amendment to § 244, instead of an amendment to § 249. And it is that compromise that became the current version of § 244.
Basically, the new §244 differed from the 1952 version in two respects. First, it compressed a complicated system, in which eligible aliens had to meet one of five different sets of requirements for relief, depending on the cause of their deportability, into a simple two-category system based essentially on the severity of the reason giving rise to de-portability. For example, under the 1962 provision, aliens who are deportable for less severe offenses have to meet a 7-year continuous-physical-presence requirement, see 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1), and those who are deportable for more severe offenses have to meet a 10-year continuous-physical-presence requirement. See § 1254(a)(2). Second, the new § 244 modified the hardship requirement for aliens who committed less severe offenses from one of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to one of “extreme hardship.”
In explaining the intent of the conferees, the Conference Report stated that “[t]he now proposed language is designed to achieve the purpose envisaged by the Senate in a modified manner.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2552, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1962). That is to say, §244, as revised, was intended to extend relief from deportation to aliens residing in the United States since 1952, at the earliest. The Report then went on to explain that by revising § 244, rather than § 249, this liberalization of relief would be constrained by two factors that were already built into the first, but not the second, provision. Those factors were, first, a requirement that the Attorney General find that deportation would result in personal hardship before granting relief, and, second, a requirement that all grants of relief be subject to congressional review.
When the Conference Committee’s compromise was reported on the House floor, one manager stated that “we largely restore title 3 of the Smith Act of 1940... as the guide for the purpose of making a determination of eligibility and obtaining the approval of the Congress for the ruling of the Attorney General,” 108 Cong. Rec. 23421 (1962) (statement of Rep. Walter), and another simply restated the Conference Report’s emphasis on the congressional-review and personal-hardship provisions of the Conference bill, id., at 23423 (statement of Rep. Feighan). The reference to the Smith Act, formally titled the Alien Registration Act of 1940, is particularly significant because that statute, which contained the original suspension-of-deportation remedy, did not impose a continuous-physical-presence requirement. 54 Stat. 672. Under the Smith Act, residence in the United States provided a sufficient basis for the Attorney General to grant suspension of deportation. It is difficult to see, therefore, how this history suggests that the House intended to impose a literal continuous-physical-presence requirement.
Similarly, various statements made by Senators debating the Conference Committee’s version of the bill belie the presence of any intent to impose a strict continuous-physical-presence requirement as a prerequisite to relief. For instance, one of the managers of the bill on the Senate floor, Senator Keating, stated that “[n]o person who would have been eligible for administrative relief under section 249 as the Senate proposed and amended it, would be excluded from consideration for relief under section 244 as the conference report now proposes to amend it.” 108 Cong. Rec. 23448 (1962). As pointed out above, under the Senate’s original proposal, §249 would have covered aliens who resided in the United States since December 24, 1952, regardless of whether their residence amounted to a “continuous physical presence.” Senator Keating, therefore, was clearly stating that such aliens would be eligible for suspension of deportation under § 244 as rewritten by the Conference Committee, even though some of them undoubtedly had left the country temporarily during their period of residency here. Accordingly, unless we are willing to decide that the explanation of the statute provided by one of its principal sponsors was, for some reason, flatly wrong, we cannot conclude that the continuous-physical-presence requirement, as enacted in 1962, was intended to be interpreted literally.
To be sure, we gain only limited insight into congressional intent from statements made during floor debate and from conference reports, but we have always relied heavily upon authoritative statements by proponents of bills in our search for the meaning of legislation. Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55, 63 (1980); FEA v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U. S. 548, 564 (1976). Of necessity, this is particularly true where, as here, a provision was introduced into a bill by a conference committee. The remarks of Senator Keating and the House managers, therefore, plainly illuminate Congress’ intent to achieve largely what an updating of § 249 would have achieved, except that the Attorney General was to be constrained by a personal-hardship requirement and congressional review.
It seems inescapable, therefore, that Congress did not intend to have the continuous-physical-presence requirement interpreted literally. Instead, under a proper construction of § 244(a)(1), the INS should remain free to apply the requirement flexibly, unconstrained by any limitation Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963), may have imposed. Indeed, in substance, this interpretation conforms with the position of the INS since at least 1967, see Matter of Wong, 12 I. & N. Dec. 271 (1967), and is apparently the position to which the agency continues to adhere. See supra, at 197, and n. 1.
Ill
-Because the Court’s opinion seems to interpret the Immigration and Nationality Act in a way that is not briefed by the parties, is unnecessary to decide this case, is contrary to the view of the agency with principal responsibility for administering the Act, is unsupported by the statute’s legislative history, and would certainly produce unreaspnable results never envisioned by Congress, I cannot join the Court’s opinion, but concur only in the judgment.
The Attorney General is authorized to delegate his powers under the Act. 8 U. S. C. §1103. Accordingly, 8 CFR §2.1 (1983) delegates the Attorney General’s power to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, and permits the Commissioner to redelegate his authority through appropriate regulations. The Commissioner has delegated the power to consider § 244 applications to special inquiry officers, whose decisions are subject to review by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), 8 CFR §§242.8, 242.21 (1983).
App. 17-24. About one month prior to her departure, respondent obtained a new Thai passport. Id., at 21-22. However, when she departed for Thailand, respondent did not have a nonimmigrant visa allowing her to reenter this country. After her arrival in Thailand, respondent went to the United States Consul and obtained a nonimmigrant visa as the wife of a foreign student. Although respondent was aware that her husband’s student visa had expired more than two years earlier, she failed to inform the consular officer of that fact. Id., at 23-24.
BIA reversed the Immigration Judge’s decision that respondent’s false testimony at her deportation hearing did not bar her from establishing her good moral character. App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a-19a. BIA also reversed the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that respondent’s husband was eligible for suspension of deportation, ruling that he had failed to establish extreme hardship either to himself or his epileptic daughter, id., at 19a-21a.
The “totality of the circumstances” approach was first articulated in Kamheangpatiyooth, which reaffirmed the Court of Appeals’ earlier ruling in Wadman v. INS, 329 F. 2d 812 (CA9 1964). See 597 F. 2d, at 1256. Wadman held that the principles established by this Court in Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963) (interpreting whether a lawful resident alien had made an “entry” within the meaning of 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III-B, and IV, an opinion with respect to Part II, in which The Chief Justice and Justice White join, and an opinion with respect to Parts III-A and V, in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Kennedy join.
In this case, we confront once again the tension between the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment to all citizens, and the use of race-based measures to ameliorate the effects of past discrimination on the opportunities enjoyed by members of minority groups in our society. In Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448 (1980), we held that a congressional program requiring that 10% of certain federal construction grants be awarded to minority contractors did not violate the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Relying largely on our decision in Fullilove, some lower federal courts have applied a similar standard of review in assessing the constitutionality of state and local minority set-aside provisions under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., South Florida Chapter, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 723 F. 2d 846 (CA11), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 871 (1984); Ohio Contractors Assn. v. Keip, 713 F. 2d 167 (CA6 1983). Since our decision two Terms ago in Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U. S. 267 (1986), the lower federal courts have attempted to apply its standards in evaluating the constitutionality of state and local programs which allocate a portion of public contracting opportunities exclusively to minority-owned businesses. See, e. g., Michigan Road Builders Assn., Inc. v. Milliken, 834 F. 2d 583 (CA6 1987), appeal docketed, No. 87-1860; Associated General Contractors of Cal. v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, 813 F. 2d 922 (CA9 1987). We noted probable jurisdiction in this case to consider the applicability of our decision in Wygant to a minority set-aside program adopted by the city of Richmond, Virginia.
I
On April 11, 1983, the Richmond City Council adopted the Minority Business Utilization Plan (the Plan). The Plan required prime contractors to whom the city awarded construction contracts to subcontract at least 30% of the dollar amount of the contract to one or more Minority Business Enterprises (MBE’s). Ordinance No. 83-69-59, codified in Richmond, Va., City Code, § 12-156(a) (1985). The 30% set-aside did not apply to city contracts awarded to minority-owned prime contractors. Ibid.
The Plan defined an MBE as “[a] business at least fifty-one (51) percent of which is owned and controlled... by minority group members.” §12-23, p. 941. “Minority group members” were defined as “[c]itizens of the United States who are Blacks, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts.” Ibid. There was no geographic limit to the Plan; an otherwise qualified MBE from anywhere in the United States could avail itself of the 30% set-aside. The Plan declared that it was “remedial” in nature, and enacted “for the purpose of promoting wider participation by minority business enterprises in the construction of public projects.” § 12-158(a). The Plan expired on June 30, 1988, and was in effect for approximately five years. Ibid.
The Plan authorized the Director of the Department of General Services to promulgate rules which “shall allow waivers in those individual situations where a contractor can prove to the satisfaction of the director that the requirements herein cannot be achieved.” §12-157. To this end, the Director promulgated Contract Clauses, Minority Business Utilization Plan (Contract Clauses). Paragraph D of these rules provided:
“No partial or complete waiver of the foregoing [30% set-aside] requirement shall be granted by the city other than in exceptional circumstances. To justify a waiver, it must be shown that every feasible attempt has been made to comply, and it must be demonstrated that sufficient, relevant, qualified Minority Business Enterprises... are unavailable or unwilling to participate in the contract to enable meeting the 30% MBE goal.” ¶0, Record, Exh. 24, p. 1; see J. A. Croson Co. v. Richmond, 779 F. 2d 181, 197 (CA4 1985) (Croson I).
The Director also promulgated “purchasing procedures” to be followed in the letting of city contracts in accordance with the Plan. Id., at 194. Bidders on city construction contracts were provided with a “Minority Business Utilization Plan Commitment Form.” Record, Exh. 24, p. 3. Within 10 days of the opening of the bids, the lowest otherwise responsive bidder was required to submit a commitment form naming the MBE’s to be used on the contract and the percentage of the total contract price awarded to the minority firm or firms. The prime contractor’s commitment form or request for a waiver of the 30% set-aside was then referred to the city Human Relations Commission (HRC). The HRC verified that the MBE’s named in the commitment form were in fact minority owned, and then either approved the commitment form or made a recommendation regarding the prime contractor’s request for a partial or complete waiver of the 30% set-aside. Croson I, 779 F. 2d, at 196. The Director of General Services made the final determination on compliance with the set-aside provisions or the propriety of granting a waiver. Ibid. His discretion in this regard appears to have been plenary. There was no direct administrative appeal from the Director’s denial of a waiver. Once a contract had been awarded to another firm a bidder denied an award for failure to comply with the MBE requirements had a general right of protest under Richmond procurement policies. Richmond, Va., City Code, §12-126(a) (1985).
The Plan was adopted by the Richmond City Council after a public hearing. App. 9-50. Seven members of the public spoke to the merits of the ordinance: five were in opposition, two in favor. Proponents of the set-aside provision relied on a study which indicated that, while the general population of Richmond was 50% black, only 0.67% of the city’s prime construction contracts had been awarded to minority businesses in the 5-year period from 1978 to 1983. It was also established that a variety of contractors’ associations, whose representatives appeared in opposition to the ordinance, had virtually no minority businesses within their membership. See Brief for Appellant 22 (chart listing minority membership of six local construction industry associations). The city’s legal counsel indicated his view that the ordinance was constitutional under this Court’s decision in Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448 (1980). App. 24. Councilperson Marsh, a proponent of the ordinance, made the following statement:
“There is some information, however, that I want to make sure that we put in the record. I have been practicing law in this community since 1961, and I am familiar with the practices in the construction industry in this area, in the State, and around the nation. And I can say without equivocation, that the general conduct of the construction industry in this area, and the State, and around the nation, is one in which race discrimination and exclusion on the basis of race is widespread.” Id., at 41.
There was no direct evidence of race discrimination on the part of the city in letting -contracts or any evidence that the city’s prime contractors had discriminated against minority-owned subcontractors. See id., at 42 (statement of Councilperson Kemp) (“[The public witnesses] indicated that the minority contractors were just not available. There wasn’t a one that gave any indication that a minority contractor would not have an opportunity, if he were available”).
Opponents of the ordinance questioned both its wisdom and its legality. They argued that a disparity between minorities in the population of Richmond and the number of prime contracts awarded to MBE’s had little probative value in establishing discrimination in the construction industry. Id., at 30 (statement of Councilperson Wake). Representatives of various contractors’ associations questioned whether there were enough MBE’s in the Richmond area to satisfy the 30% set-aside requirement. Id., at 32 (statement of Mr. Beck); id., at 33 (statement of Mr. Singer); id., at 35-36 (statement of Mr. Murphy). Mr. Murphy noted that only 4.7% of all construction firms in the United States were minority owned and that 41% of these were located in California, New York, Illinois, Florida, and Hawaii. He predicted that the ordinance would thus lead to a windfall for the few minority firms in Richmond. Ibid. Councilperson Gillespie indicated his concern that many local labor jobs, held by both blacks and whites, would be lost because the ordinance put no geographic limit on the MBE’s eligible for the 30% set-aside. Id., at 44. Some of the representatives of the local contractors’ organizations indicated that they did not discriminate on the basis of race and were in fact actively seeking out minority members. Id., at 38 (statement of Mr. Shuman) (“The company I work for belonged to all these [contractors’] organizations. Nobody that I know of, black, Puerto Rican or any minority, has ever been turned down. They’re actually sought after to join, to become part of us”); see also id., at 20 (statement of Mr. Watts). Councilperson Gillespie expressed his concern about the legality of the Plan, and asked that a vote be delayed pending consultation with outside counsel. His suggestion was rejected, and the ordinance was enacted by a vote of six to two, with Councilperson Gillespie abstaining. Id., at 49.
On September 6, 1983, the city of Richmond issued an invitation to bid on a project for the provision and installation of certain plumbing fixtures at the city jail. On September 30, 1983, Eugene Bonn, the regional manager of J. A. Croson Company (Croson), a mechanical plumbing and heating contractor, received the bid forms. The project involved the installation of stainless steel urinals and water closets in the city jail. Products of either of two manufacturers were specified, Acorn Engineering Company (Acorn) or Bradley Manufacturing Company (Bradley). Bonn determined that to meet the 30% set-aside requirement, a minority contractor would have to supply the fixtures. The provision of the fixtures amounted to 75% of the total contract price.
On September 30, Bonn contacted five or six MBE’s that were potential suppliers of the fixtures, after contacting three local and state agencies that maintained lists of MBE’s. No MBE expressed interest in the project or tendered a quote. On October 12, 1983, the day the bids were due, Bonn again telephoned a group of MBE’s. This time, Melvin Brown, president of Continental Metal Hose (Continental), a local MBE, indicated that he wished to participate in the project. Brown subsequently contacted two sources of the specified fixtures in order to obtain a price quotation. One supplier, Ferguson Plumbing Supply, which is not an MBE, had already made a quotation directly to Croson, and refused to quote the same fixtures to Continental. Brown also contacted an agent of Bradley, one of the two manufacturers of the specified fixtures. The agent was not familiar with Brown or Continental, and indicated that a credit check was required which would take at least 30 days to complete.
On October 13, 1983, the sealed bids were opened. Croson turned out to be the only bidder, with a bid of $126,530. Brown and Bonn met personally at the bid opening, and Brown informed Bonn that his difficulty in obtaining credit approval had hindered his submission of a bid.
By October 19, 1983, Croson had still not received a bid from Continental. On that date it submitted a request for a waiver of the 30% set-aside. Croson’s waiver request indicated that Continental was “unqualified” and that the other MBE’s contacted had been unresponsive or unable to quote. Upon learning of Croson’s waiver request, Brown contacted an agent of Acorn, the other fixture manufacturer specified by the city. Based upon his discussions with Acorn, Brown subsequently submitted a bid on- the fixtures to Croson. Continental’s bid was $6,183.29 higher than the price Croson had included for the fixtures in its bid to the city. This constituted a 7% increase over the market price for the fixtures. With added bonding and insurance, using Continental would have raised the cost of the project by $7,663.16. On the same day that Brown contacted Acorn, he also called city procurement officials and told them that Continental, an MBE, could supply the fixtures specified in the city jail contract. On November 2, 1983, the city denied Croson’s waiver request, indicating that Croson had 10 days to submit an MBÉ Utilization Commitment Form, and warned that failure to do so could result in its bid being considered unresponsive.
Croson wrote the city on November 8, 1983. In the letter, Bonn indicated that Continental was not an authorized supplier for either Acorn or Bradley fixtures. He also noted that Acorn’s quotation to Brown was subject to credit approval and in any case was substantially higher than any other quotation Croson had received. Finally, Bonn noted that Continental’s bid had been submitted some 21 days after the prime bids were due. In a second letter, Croson laid out the additional costs that using Continental to supply the fixtures would entail, and asked that it be allowed to raise the overall contract price accordingly. The city denied both Croson’s request for a waiver and its suggestion that the contract price be raised. The city informed Croson that it had decided to rebid the project. On December 9, 1983, counsel for Croson wrote the city asking for a review of the waiver denial. The city’s attorney responded that the city had elected to rebid the project, and that there is no appeal of such a decision. Shortly thereafter Croson brought this action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, arguing that the Richmond ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and as applied in this case.
The District Court upheld the Plan in all respects. See Supplemental App. to Juris. Statement 112-232 (Supp. App.). In its original opinion, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Croson I, 779 F. 2d. 181 (1985). Both courts applied a test derived from “the common concerns articulated by the various Supreme Court opinions” in Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448 (1980), and University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265 (1978). See Croson I, swpra, at 188. Relying on the great deference which this Court accorded Congress’ findings of past discrimination in Fullilove, the panel majority indicated its view that the same standard should be applied to the Richmond City Council, stating:
“Unlike the review we make of a lower court decision, our task is not to determine if there was sufficient evidence to sustain the council majority’s position in any traditional sense of weighing the evidence. Rather, it is to determine whether ‘the legislative history... demonstrates that [the council] reasonably concluded that... private and governmental discrimination had contributed to the negligible percentage of public contracts awarded minority contractors.’” 779 F. 2d, at 190 (quoting Fullilove, supra, at 503 (Powell, J., concurring)).
The majority found that national findings of discrimination in the construction industry, when considered in conjunction with the statistical study concerning the awarding of prime contracts in Richmond, rendered the city council’s conclusion that low minority participation in city contracts was due to past discrimination “reasonable.” Croson I, 779 F. 2d, at 190, and n. 12. The panel opinion then turned to the second part of its “synthesized Fullilove” test, examining whether the racial quota was “narrowly tailored to the legislative goals of the Plan.” Id., at 190. First, the court upheld the 30% set-aside figure, by comparing it not to the number of MBE’s in Richmond, but rather to the percentage of minority persons in the city’s population. Id., at 191. The panel held that to remedy the effects of past discrimination, “a set-aside program for a period of five years obviously must require more than a 0.67% set-aside to encourage minorities to enter the contracting industry and to allow existing minority contractors to grow.” Ibid. Thus, in the court’s view the 30% figure was “reasonable in light of the undisputed fact that minorities constitute 50% of the population of Richmond.” Ibid.
Croson sought certiorari from this Court. We granted the writ, vacated the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of our intervening decision in Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U. S. 267 (1986). See 478 U. S. 1016 (1986).
On remand, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals struck down the Richmond set-aside program as violating both prongs of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. J. A. Croson Co. v. Richmond, 822 F. 2d 1355 (CA4 1987) (Croson II). The majority found that the “core” of this Court’s holding in Wygant was that, “[t]o show that a plan is justified by a compelling governmental interest, a municipality that wishes to employ a racial preference cannot rest on broad-brush assumptions of historical discrimination.” 822 F. 2d, at 1357. As the court read this requirement, “[findings of societal discrimination will not suffice; the findings must concern ‘prior discrimination by the government unit involved.’” Id., at 1358 (quoting Wygant, supra, at 274) (emphasis in original).
In this case, the debate at the city council meeting “revealed no record of prior discrimination by the city in awarding public contracts....” Croson II, supra, at 1358. Moreover, the statistics comparing the minority population of Richmond to the percentage of prime contracts awarded to minority firms had little or no probative value in establishing prior discrimination in the relevant market, and actually suggested “more of a political than a remedial basis for the racial preference.” 822 F. 2d, at 1359. The court concluded that, “[i]f this plan is supported by a compelling governmental interest, so is every other plan that has been enacted in the past or that will be enacted in the future.” Id., at 1360.
The Court of Appeals went on to hold that even if the city had demonstrated a compelling interest in the use of a race-based quota, the 30% set-aside was not narrowly tailored to accomplish a remedial purpose. The court found that the 30% figure was “chosen arbitrarily” and was not tied to the number of minority subcontractors in Richmond or to any other relevant number. Ibid. The dissenting judge argued that the majority had “misconstrue[d] and misapplied]” our decision in Wygant. 822 F. 2d, at 1362. We noted probable jurisdiction of the city’s appeal, 484 U. S. 1058 (1988), and we now affirm the judgment.
II
The parties and their supporting amici fight an initial battle over the scope of the city’s power to adopt legislation designed to address the effects of past discrimination. Relying on our decision in Wygant, appellee argues that the city must limit any race-based remedial efforts to eradicating the effects of its own prior discrimination. This is essentially the position'taken by the Court of Appeals below. Appellant argues that our decision in Fullilove is controlling, and that as a result the city of Richmond enjoys sweeping legislative power to define and attack the effects of prior discrimination in its local construction industry. We find that neither of these two rather stark alternatives can withstand analysis.
In Fullilove, we upheld the minority set-aside contained in § 103(f)(2) of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-28, 91 Stat. 116, 42 U. S. C. § 6701 et seq. (Act) against a challenge based on the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause. The Act authorized a $4 billion appropriation for federal grants to state and local governments for use in public works projects. The primary purpose of the Act was to give the national economy a quick boost in a recessionary period; funds had to be committed to state or local grantees by September 30, 1977. The Act also contained the following requirement: “ ‘Except to the extent the Secretary determines otherwise, no grant shall be made under this Act... unless the applicant gives satisfactory assurance to the Secretary that at least 10 per centum of the amount of each grant shall be expended for minority business enterprises.’” Fullilove, 448 U. S., at 454 (quoting 91 Stat. 116, 42 U. S. C. § 6705(f)(2)). MBE’s were defined as businesses effectively controlled by “citizens of the United States who are Negroes, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts.” Ibid.
The principal opinion in Fullilove, written by Chief Justice Burger, did not employ “strict scrutiny” or any other traditional standard of equal protection review. The Chief Justice noted at the outset that although racial classifications call for close examination, the Court was at the same time “bound to approach [its] task with appropriate deference to the Congress, a co-equal branch charged by the Constitution with the power to ‘provide for the... general Welfare of the United States’ and ‘to enforce by appropriate legislation,’ the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 448 U. S., at 472. The principal opinion asked two questions: first, were the objectives of the legislation within the power of Congress? Second, was the limited use of racial and ethnic criteria a permissible means for Congress to carry out its objectives within the constraints of the Due Process Clause? Id., at 473.
On the issue of congressional power, the Chief Justice found that Congress’ commerce power was sufficiently broad to allow it to reach the practices of prime contractors on federally funded local construction projects. Id., at 475-476. Congress could mandate state and local government compliance with the set-aside program under its §5 power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at 476 (citing Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 651 (1966)).
The Chief Justice next turned to the constraints on Congress’ power to employ race-conscious remedial relief. His opinion stressed two factors in upholding the MBE set-aside. First was the unique remedial powers of Congress under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
“Here we deal... not with the limited remedial powers of a federal court, for example, but with the broad remedial powers of Congress. It is fundamental that in no organ of government, state or federal, does there repose a more comprehensive remedial power than in the Congress, expressly charged by the Constitution with competence and authority to enforce equal protection guarantees.” 448 U. S., at 483 (principal opinion) (emphasis added).
Because of these unique powers, the Chief Justice concluded that “Congress not only may induce voluntary action to assure compliance with existing federal statutory or constitutional antidiscrimination provisions, but also, where Congress has authority to declare certain conduct unlawful, it may, as here, authorize and induce state action to avoid such conduct.” Id., at 483-484 (emphasis added).
In reviewing the legislative history behind the Act, the principal opinion focused on the evidence before Congress that a nationwide history of past discrimination had reduced minority participation in federal construction grants. Id., at 458-467. The Chief Justice also noted that Congress drew on its experience under § 8(a) of the Small Business Act of 1953, which had extended aid to minority businesses. Id., at 463-467. The Chief Justice concluded that “Congress had abundant historical basis from which it could conclude that traditional procurement practices, when applied to minority businesses, could perpetuate the effects of prior discrimination.” Id., at 478.
The second factor emphasized by the principal opinion in Fullilove was the flexible nature of the 10% set-aside. Two “congressional assumptions” underlay the MBE program: first, that the effects of past discrimination had impaired the competitive position of minority businesses, and second, that “adjustment for the effects of past discrimination” would assure that at least 10% of the funds from the federal grant program would flow to minority businesses. The Chief Justice noted that both of these “assumptions” could be “rebutted” by a grantee seeking a waiver of the 10% requirement. Id., at 487-488. Thus a waiver could be sought where minority businesses were not available to fill the 10% requirement or, more importantly, where an MBE attempted “to exploit the remedial aspects of the program by charging an unreasonable price, i. e., a price not attributable to the present effects of prior discrimination.” Id., at 488. The Chief Justice indicated that without this fine tuning to remedial purpose, the statute would not have “pass[ed] muster.” Id., at 487.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Powell relied on the legislative history adduced by the principal opinion in finding that “Congress reasonably concluded that private and governmental discrimination had contributed to the negligible percentage of public contracts awarded minority contractors.” Id., at 503. Justice Powell also found that the means chosen by Congress, particularly in light of the flexible waiver provisions, were “reasonably necessary” to address the problem identified. Id., at 514-515. Justice Powell made it clear that other governmental entities might have to show more than Congress before undertaking race-conscious measures: “The degree of specificity required in the findings of discrimination and the breadth of discretion in the choice of remedies may vary with the nature and authority of the governmental body.” Id., at 515-516, n. 14.
Appellant and its supporting amici rely heavily on Fullilove for the proposition that a city council, like Congress, need not make specific findings of discrimination to engage in race-conscious relief. Thus, appellant argues “[i]t would be a perversion of federalism to hold that the federal government has a compelling interest in remedying the effects of racial discrimination in its own public works program, but a city government does not.” Brief for Appellant 32 (footnote omitted).
What appellant ignores is that Congress, unlike any State or political subdivision, has a specific constitutional mandate to enforce the dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment. The power to “enforce” may at times also include the power to define situations which Congress determines threaten principles of equality and to adopt prophylactic rules to deal with those situations. See Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S., at 651 (“Correctly viewed, §5 is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment”). See also South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 326 (1966) (similar interpretation of congressional power under § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment). The Civil War Amendments themselves worked a dramatic change in the balance between congressional and state power over matters of race. Speaking of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments in Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 345 (1880), the Court stated: “They were intended to be, what they really are, limitations of the powers of the States and enlargements of the power of Congress.”
That Congress may identify and redress the effects of society-wide discrimination does not mean that, a fortiori, the States and their political subdivisions are free to decide that such remedies are appropriate. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is an explicit constraint on state power, and the States must undertake any remedial efforts in accordance with that provision. To hold otherwise would be to cede control over the content of the Equal Protection Clause to the 50 state legislatures and their myriad political subdivisions. The mere recitation of a benign or compensatory purpose for the use of a racial classification would essentially entitle the States to exercise the full power of Congress under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and insulate any racial classification from judicial scrutiny under § 1. We believe that such a result would be contrary to the intentions of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, who desired to place clear limits on the States’ use of race as a criterion for legislative action, and to have the federal courts enforce those limitations. See Associated General Contractors of Cal. v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, 813 F. 2d, at 929 (Kozinski, J.) (“The city is not just like the federal government with regard to the findings it must make to justify race-conscious remedial action”); see also Days, Fullilove, 96 Yale L. J. 453, 474 (1987) (hereinafter Days) (“Fullilove clearly focused on the constitutionality of a congressionally mandated set-aside program”) (emphasis in original); Bohrer, Bakke, Weber, and Fullilove: Benign Discrimination and Congressional Power to Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, 56 Ind. L. J. 473, 512-513 (1981) (“Congress may authorize, pursuant to section 5, state action that would be foreclosed to the states acting alone”).
We do not, as Justice Marshall’s dissent suggests, see post, at 557-560, find in §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment some form of federal pre-emption in matters of race. We simply note what should be apparent to all — § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment stemmed from a distrust of state legislative enactments based on race; § 5 is, as the dissent notes, “ ‘a positive grant of legislative power’” to Congress. Post, at 557, quoting Katzenbach v. Morgan, supra, at 651 (emphasis in dissent). Thus, our treatment of an exercise of congressional power in Fullilove cannot be dispositive here. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873), cited by the dissent, post, at 560, the Court noted that the Civil War Amendments granted “additional powers to the Federal government,” and laid “additional restraints upon those of the States.” 16 Wall., at 68.
It would seem equally clear, however, that a state or local subdivision (if delegated the authority from the State) has the authority to eradicate the effects of private discrimination within its own legislative jurisdiction. This authority must, of course, be exercised within the constraints of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Our decision in Wygant is not to the contrary. Wygant addressed the constitutionality of the use of racial quotas by local school authorities pursuant to an agreement reached with the local teachers’ union. It was in the context of addressing the school board’s power to adopt a race-based layoff program affecting its own work force that the Wygant plurality indicated that the Equal Protection Clause required “some showing of prior discrimination by the governmental unit involved.” Wygant, 476 U. S., at 274. As a matter of state law, the city of Richmond has legislative authority over its procurement policies, and can use its spending powers to remedy private discrimination, if it identifies that discrimination with the particularity required by the Fourteenth Amendment. To this extent, on the question of the city’s competence, the Court of Appeals erred in following Wygant by rote in a case involving a state entity which has state-law authority to address discriminatory practices within local commerce under its jurisdiction.
Thus, if the city could show that it had essentially become a “passive participant” in a system of racial exclusion practiced by elements of the local construction industry, we think it clear that the city could take affirmative steps to dismantle such a system. It is beyond dispute that any public entity, state or federal, has a compelling interest in assuring that public dollars, drawn from the tax contributions of all citizens, do not serve to finance the evil of private prejudice. Cf. Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U. S. 455, 465 (1973) (“Racial discrimination in state-operated schools is barred by the Constitution and [i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it ■is.Constitutionally forbidderi to accomplish”) (citation and internal' quotations omitted).
Ill
A
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Emphasis added.) As this Coúrt'has noted in;the past, the “rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. The rights established are personal rights. ” Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 22 (1948). The Richmond Plan denies certain citizens the opportunity to compete for a fixed percentage of public contracts based solely upon their race. To whatever racial group these citizens belong, their “personal rights” to be treated with equal dignity and respect are implicated by a rigid rule erecting race as the sole criterion in an aspect of public decisionmaking.
.Absent searching judicial inquiry into the justification for such race-based measures, there is simply no way of determining what classifications are “benign” or ‘‘remedial” and what classifications are in fact motivated by illegitimate notions of racial inferiority or simple'racial politics. Indeed, the purpose of strict scrutiny is to “smoke out” illegitimate uses of race by assuring that the legislative body is pursuing a goal important enough to warrant use of a highly suspect tool. The test also ensures that the means chosen “fit” this compelling goal so closely that there is little or no possibility that the motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype.
Classifications based on race carry a danger of stigmatic harm. Unless they are strictly reserved for remedial settings, they may in fact promote notions of racial inferiority and lead to a politics of racial hostility. See University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U. S., at 298 (opinion of Powell, J.) (“[Preferential programs may only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without special protection based -on a factor having no relation to individual worth”). We thus reaffirm the view expressed by the plurality in Wygant that the standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause is not dependent on the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification. Wygant, 476 U. S., at 279-280; id., at 285-286 (O’Connor, J., concurring ip part and concurring in judgment). See also San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 105 (1973) (
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In October, 1946, the United States was in possession of, and operating, the major portion of the country’s bituminous coal mines. Terms and conditions of employment were controlled “for the period of Government possession” by an agreement entered into on May 29, 1946, between Secretary of the Interior Krug, as Coal Mines Administrator, and John L. Lewis, as President of the United Mine Workers of America. The Krug-Lewis agreement embodied far-reaching changes favorable to the miners; and, except as amended and supplemented therein, the agreement carried forward the terms and conditions of the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of April 11, 1945.
On October 21, 1946, the defendant Lewis directed a letter to Secretary Krug and presented issues which led directly to the present controversy. According to the defendant Lewis, the Krug-Lewis agreement carried forward § 15 of the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of April 11, 1945. Under that section either party to the contract was privileged to give ten days’ notice in writing of a desire for a negotiating conference which the other party was required to attend; fifteen days after the beginning of the conference either party might give notice in writing of the termination of the agreement, effective five days after receipt of such notice. Asserting authority under this clause, the defendant Lewis in his letter of October 21 requested that a conference begin November 1 for the purpose of negotiating new arrangements concerning wages, hours, practices, and other pertinent matters appertaining to the bituminous coal industry.
Captain N. H. Collisson, then Coal Mines Administrator, answered for Secretary Krug. Any contractual basis for requiring negotiations for revision of the Krug-Lewis agreement was denied. In the opinion of the Government, § 15 of the 1945 agreement had not been preserved by the Krug-Lewis agreement; indeed, § 15 had been expressly nullified by the clause of the latter contract providing that the terms contained therein were to cover the period of Government possession. Although suggesting that any negotiations looking toward a new agreement be carried on with the mine owners, the Government expressed willingness to discuss matters affecting the operation of the mines under the terms of the Krug-Lewis agreement.
Conferences were scheduled and began in Washington on November 1, both the union and the Government adhering to their opposing views regarding the right of either party to terminate the contract. At the fifth meeting, held on November 11, the union for the first time offered specific proposals for changes in wages and other conditions of employment. On November 13 Secretary Krug requested the union to negotiate with the mine owners. This suggestion was rejected. On November 15 the union, by John L. Lewis, notified Secretary Krug that “Fifteen days having now elapsed since the beginning of said conference, the United Mine Workers of America, exercising its option hereby terminates said Krug-Lewis Agreement as of 12:00 o’clock P. M., Midnight, Wednesday, November 20, 1946.”
Secretary Krug again notified the defendant Lewis that he had no power under the Krug-Lewis agreement or under the law to terminate the contract by unilateral declaration. The President of the United States announced his strong support of the Government’s position and requested reconsideration by the union in order to avoid a national crisis. However, the defendant Lewis, as union president, circulated to the mine workers copies of the November 15 letter to Secretary Krug. This communication was for the “official information” of union members.
The United States on November 18 filed a complaint in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the United Mine Workers of America and John L. Lewis, individually and as president of the union. The suit was brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act and sought judgment to the effect that the defendants had no power unilaterally to terminate the Krug-Lewis agreement. And, alleging that the November 15 notice was in reality a strike notice, the. United States, pending the final determination of the cause, requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief.
The court, immediately and without notice to the defendants, issued a temporary order restraining the defendants from continuing in effect the notice of November 15, from encouraging the mine workers to interfere with the operation of the mines by strike or cessation of work, and from taking any action which would interfere with the court’s jurisdiction and its determination of the case. The order by its terms was to expire at 3:00 p. m. on November 27 unless extended for good cause shown. A hearing on the preliminary injunction was set for 10:00 a. m. on the same date. The order and complaint were served on the defendants on November 18.
A gradual walkout by the miners commenced on November 18, and, by midnight of November 20, consistent with the.miners’ “no contract, no work” policy, a full-blown strike was in progress. Mines furnishing the major part of the nation’s bituminous coal production were idle.
On November 21 the United States filed a petition for a rule to show cause why the defendants should not be punished as and for contempt, alleging a willful violation’ of the restraining order. The rule issued, setting November 25 as the return day and, if at that time the contempt was not sufficiently purged, setting November 27 as the day for trial on the contempt charge.
On the return day, defendants, by counsel, informed the court that no action had been taken concerning the November 15 notice, and denied the jurisdiction of the court to issue the restraining order and rule to show cause. Trial on the contempt charge was thereupon ordered to begin as scheduled on November 27. On November 26 the defendants filed a motion to discharge and vacate the rule to show cause. Their motion challenged the jurisdiction of the court, and raised the grave question of whether the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibited the granting of the temporary restraining order at the instance of the United States.
After extending the temporary restraining order on November 27, and after full argument on November 27 and November 29, the court, on the latter date, overruled the motion and held that its power to issue the restraining order in this case was not affected by either the NorrisLaGuardia Act or the Clayton Act.
The defendants thereupon pleaded not guilty and waived an advisory jury. Trial on the contempt charge proceeded. The Government presented eight witnesses, the defendants none. At the conclusion of the trial on December 3, the court found that the defendants had permitted the November 15 notice to remain outstanding, had encouraged the miners to interfere by a strike with the operation of the mines and with the performance of governmental functions, and had interfered with the jurisdiction of the court. Both defendants were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both criminal and civil contempt dating from November 18. The court entered judgment on December 4, fining the defendant Lewis $10,000, and the defendant union $3,500,000. On the same day a preliminary injunction, effective until a final determination of the case, was issued in terms similar to those of the restraining order.
On December 5 the defendants filed notices of appeal from the judgments of contempt. The judgments were stayed pending the appeals. The United States on December 6 filed a petition for certiorari in both cases. Section 240 (a) of the Judicial Code authorizes a petition for certiorari by any party and the granting of certiorari prior to judgment in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Prompt settlement of this case being in the public interest, we granted certiorari on December 9, and subsequently, for similar reasons, granted petitions for certiorari filed-by the defendants, 329 U. S. 708, 709, 710. The cases were consolidated for argument.
I.
Defendants’ first and principal contention is that the restraining order and preliminary injunction were issued in violation of the Clayton and Norris-LaGuardia Acts. We have come to a contrary decision.
It is true that Congress decreed in § 20 of the Clayton Act that "no such restraining order or injunction shall prohibit any person or persons... from recommending, advising, or persuading others...” to strike. But by the Act itself this provision was made applicable only to cases “between an employer and employees, or between employers and employees, or between employees, or between persons employed and persons seeking employment...." For reasons which will be explained at greater length in discussing the applicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, we cannot construe the general term “employer” to include the United States, where there is no express reference to the United States and no evident affirmative grounds for believing that Congress intended to withhold an otherwise available remedy from the Government as well as from a specified class of private persons.
Moreover, it seems never to have been suggested that the proscription on injunctions found in the Clayton Act is in any respect broader than that in the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Defendants do not suggest in their argument that it is. This Court, on the contrary, has stated that the Norris-LaGuardia Act “still further... [narrowed] the circumstances under which the federal courts could grant injunctions in labor disputes.” Consequently, we would feel justified in this case to consider the application of the Norris-LaGuardia Act alone. If it does not apply, neither does the less comprehensive proscription of the Clayton Act; if it does, defendants’ reliance on the Clayton Act is unnecessary.
By the Norris-LaGuardia Act, Congress divested the federal courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctions in a specified class of cases. It would probably be conceded that the characteristics of the present case would be such as to bring it within that class if the basic dispute had remained one between defendants and a private employer, and the latter had been the plaintiff below. So much seems to be found in the express terms of §§ 4 and 13 of the Act, set out in the margin. The specifications in § 13 are in general terms and make no express exception of the United States. From these premises, defendants argue that the restraining order and injunction were forbidden by the Act and were wrongfully issued.
Even if our examination of the Act stopped here, we could hardly assent to this conclusion. There is an old and well-known rule that statutes which in general terms divest pre-existing rights or privileges will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect. It has been stated, in cases in which there were extraneous and affirmative reasons for believing that the sovereign should also be deemed subject to a restrictive statute, that this rule was a rule of construction only. Though that may be true, the rule has been invoked successfully in cases so closely similar to the present one, and the statement of the rule in those cases has been so explicit, that we are inclined to give it much weight here. Congress was not ignorant of the rule which those cases reiterated; and, with knowledge of that rule, Congress would not, in writing the Norris-LaGuardia Act, omit to use “clear and specific [language] to that effect” if it actually intended to reach the Government in all cases.
But we need not place entire reliance on this exclusionary rule. Section 2, which declared the public policy of the United States as a guide to the Act’s interpretation, carries indications as to the scope of the Act. It predicates the purpose of the Act on the contrast between the position of the “individual unorganized worker” and that of the “owners of property” who have been permitted to “organize in the corporate and other forms of ownership association,” and on the consequent helplessness of the worker “to exercise actual liberty of contract... and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment.” The purpose of the Act is said to be to contribute to the worker’s “full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment, and that he shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives... for the purpose of collective bargaining....” These considerations, on their face, obviously do not apply to the Government as an employer or to relations between the Government and its employees.
If we examine §§ 4 and 13, on which defendants rely, we note that they do not purport to strip completely from the federal courts all their pre-existing powers to issue injunctions, that they withdraw this power only in a specified type of case, and that this type is a case “involving or growing out of any labor dispute.” Section 13, in the first instance, declares a case to be of this type when it “involves persons” or “involves any conflicting or competing interests” in a labor dispute of “persons” who stand in any one of several defined economic relationships. And “persons” must be involved on both sides of the case, or the conflicting interests of “persons” on both sides of the dispute. The Act does not define “persons.” In common usage that term does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so. Congress made express provision, R. S. § 1, 1 U. S. C. § 1, for the term to extend to partnerships and corporations, and in § 13 of the Act itself for it to extend to associations. The absence of any comparable provision extending the term to sovereign governments implies that Congress did not desire the term to extend to them.
Those clauses in § 13 (a) and (b) spelling out the position of “persons” relative to the employer-employee relationship affirmatively suggest that the United States, as an employer, was not meant to be included. Those clauses require that the case involve persons “who are engaged in the same industry, trade, craft, or occupation,” who “have direct or indirect interests therein,” who are “employees of the same employer,” who are “members of the same or an affiliated organization of employers or employees,” or who stand in some one of other specified positions relative to a dispute over the employer-employee relationship. Every one of these qualifications in § 13 (a) and (b) we think relates to an economic role ordinarily filled by a private individual or corporation, and not by a sovereign government. None of them is at all suggestive of any part played by the United States in its relations with its own employees. We think that Congress’ failure to refer to the United States or to specify any role which it might commonly be thought to fill is strong indication that it did not intend that the Act should apply to situations in which the United States appears as employer.
In the type of case to which the Act applies, § 7 requires certain findings of fact as conditions precedent to the issuance of injunctions even for the limited purposes recognized by the Act. One such required finding is that “the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.” Obviously, such finding could never be made if the complainant were the United States, and federal property were threatened by federal employees, as the responsibility of protection would then rest not only on state officers, but also on all federal civil and military forces. If these failed, a federal injunction would be a meaningless form. This provision, like those in §§ 2, 4 and 13, already discussed, indicates that the Act was not intended to affect the relations between the United States and its employees.
Defendants maintain that certain facts in the legislative history of the Act so clearly indicate an intent to restrict the Government’s use of injunctions that all the foregoing arguments to the contrary must be rejected.
Representative Beck of Pennsylvania indicated in the course of the House debates that he thought the Government would be included within the prohibitions of the Act. Mr. Beck was not a member of the Judiciary Committee which reported the bill, and did not vote for its passage. We do not accept his views as expressive of the attitude of Congress relative to the status of the United States under the Act.
Representative Blanton of Texas introduced an amendment to the bill which would have made an exception to the provision limiting the injunctive power “where the United States Government is the petitioner,” and this amendment was defeated by the House. But the first comment made on this amendment, after its introduction, was that of Representative LaGuardia, the House sponsor of the bill, who opposed it, not on the ground that such an exception should not be made, but rather on the ground that the express exception was unnecessary. Mr. LaGuardia read the definition of a person “participating or interested in a labor dispute” in § 13 (b), referred to the provisions of § 13 (a), and then added: “I do not see how in any possible way the United States can be brought in under the provisions of this bill.” When Mr. Blanton thereupon suggested the necessity of allowing the Government to use injunctions to maintain discipline in the army and navy, Mr. LaGuardia pointed out that these services are not “a trade, craft, or occupation.” Mr. Blanton’s only answer to Mr. LaGuardia’s opposition was that the latter “does not know what extensions will be made.” A vote was then taken and the amendment defeated. Obviously this incident does not reveal a Congressional intent to legislate concerning the relationship between the United States and its employees.
In the debates in both Houses of Congress numerous references were made to previous instances in which the United States had resorted to the injunctive process in labor disputes between private enlployers and private employees, where some public interest was thought to have become involved. These instances were offered as illustrations of the abuses flowing from the use of injunctions in labor disputes and the desirability of placing a limitation thereon. The frequency of these references and the attention directed to their subject matter are compelling circumstances. We agree that they indicate that Congress, in passing the Act, did not intend to permit the United States to continue to intervene by injunction in purely private labor disputes.
But whether Congress so intended or not is a question different from the one before us now. Here we are concerned only with the Government’s right to injunctive relief in a dispute with its own employees. Although we recognize that Congress intended to withdraw such remedy in the former situation, it does not follow that it intended to do so in the latter. The circumstances in which the Government sought such remedy in 1894 and 1922 were vastly different from those in which the Government is seeking to carry out its responsibilities by taking legal action against its own employees, and we think that the references in question have only the most distant and uncertain bearing on our present problem. Indeed, when we look further into the history of the Act, we find other events which unequivocally demonstrate that injunctive relief was not intended to be withdrawn in the latter situation.
When the House had before it a rule for the consideration of the bill, Representative Michener, a ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee and spokesman for the minority party on the Rules Committee, made a general statement in the House concerning the subject matter of the bill and advocating its immediate consideration. In this survey he clearly stated that the Government’s rights with respect to its own employees would not be affected:
“Be it remembered that this bill does not attempt to legislate concerning Government employees. I do not believe that the enactment of this bill into law will take away from the Federal Government any rights which it has under existing law, to seek and obtain injunctive relief where the same is necessary for the functioning of the Government.”
In a later stage of the debate, Representative Michener repeated this view in the following terms:
“This deals with labor disputes between individuals, not where the Government is involved. It is my notion that under this bill the Government can function with an injunction, if that is necessary in order to carry out the purpose of the Government. I should like to see this clarified, but I want to go on record as saying that under my interpretation of this bill the Federal Government will not at any time be prevented from applying for an injunction, if one is necessary in order that the Government may function.”
Representatives Michener and LaGuardia were members of the Judiciary Committee which reported and recommended the bill to the House. They were the most active spokesmen for the Committee, both in explaining the bill and advocating its passage. No member of the House who voted for the bill challenged their explanations. At least one other member expressed a like understanding. We cannot but believe that the House accepted these authoritative representations as to the proper construction of the bill. The Senate expressed no contrary understanding, and we must conclude that Congress, in passing the Act, did not intend to withdraw the Government’s existing rights to injunctive relief against its own employees.
If we were to stop here, there would be little difficulty in accepting the decision of the District Court upon the scope of the Act. And the cases in this Court express consistent views concerning the types of situations to which the Act applies. They have gone no farther than to follow Congressional desires by regarding as beyond the jurisdiction of the District Courts the issuance of injunctions sought by the United States and directed to persons who are not employees of the United States. None of these cases dealt with the narrow segment of the employer-employee relationship now before us.
But regardless of the determinative guidance so offered, defendants rely upon the opinions of several Senators uttered in May, 1943, while debating the Senate version of the War Labor Disputes Act. The debate at that time centered around a substitute for the bill, S. 796, as originally introduced. Section 5 of the substitute, as amended, provided, “The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of the Territories or possessions shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, but solely upon application by the Attorney General or under his direction... to restrain violations or threatened violations of this act.” Following the rejection of other amendments aimed at permitting a much wider use of injunctions and characterized as contrary to the Norris-LaGuardia Act, several Senators were of the opinion that § 5 itself would remove some of the protection given employees by that Act, a view contrary to what we have just determined to be the scope of the Act as passed in 1932. Section 5 was defeated and no injunctive provisions were contained in the Senate bill.
We have considered these opinions, but cannot accept them as authoritative guides to the construction of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. They were expressed by Senators, some of whom were not members of the Senate in 1932, and none of whom was on the Senate Judiciary-Committee which reported the bill. They were expressed eleven years after the Act was passed and cannot be accorded even the same weight as if made by the same individuals in the course of the Norris-LaGuardia debates. Moreover, these opinions were given by individuals striving to write legislation from the floor of the Senate and working without the benefit.of hearings and committee reports on the issues crucial to us here. We fail to see how the remarks of these Senators in 1943 can serve to change the legislative intent of Congress expressed in 1932, and we accordingly adhere to our conclusion that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not affect the jurisdiction of the courts to issue injunctions when sought by the United States in a labor dispute with its own employees.
It has been suggested, however, that Congress, in passing the War Labor Disputes Act, effectively restricted the theretofore existing authority of the courts to issue injunctions in connection with labor disputes in plants seized by the United States. Chief reliance is placed upon the rejection by the Senate of § 5 of the Connally substitute bill. But it is clear that no comparable action transpired in the House. Indeed, proposals in the House and the House substitute for S. 796 authorized the use of injunctions in connection with private plants not yet seized by the United States. These admitted inroads on the Norris-LaGuardia Act drew much comment on the floor of the House, but nevertheless prevailed. Seizure was also contemplated, and criminal sanctions were made available in this situation, without specifically authorizing the use of injunctions by the United States. The latter issue was not raised, not debated and not commented upon in the House. But the fact that the House version did not provide for the issuance of injunctions to aid in the operation of seized plants is not the issue here. Rather, it is whether the House expressed any intent to restrict the existing authority of the courts. We find not the slightest suggestion to that effect in either the House substitute bill or the debates concerning it.
Nor can the action of the conference committee be construed as a Congressional proscription of issuing injunctions to aid the United States in dealing with employees in seized plants. Neither the House nor Senate version, as these bills went to conference, in any way placed this issue before the conferees. The conference committee simply struck the broader provisions of the House bill allowing injunctions to issue in private labor disputes and had no occasion to consider the narrower question we have before us now. The conferees, in producing the Act in its final form, did nothing which suggests that the Congress intended to bar injunctions sought by the Government to aid in the operation of seized plants. We thus find nothing in the legislative background of the War Labor Disputes Act which constitutes an authoritative expression of Congress directing the courts to withhold from the United States injunctive relief in connection with an Act designed to strengthen the hand of the Government in serious labor disputes.
The defendants contend, however, that workers in mines seized by the Government are not employees of the Federal Government; that in operating the mines thus seized, the Government is not engaged in a sovereign function; and that, consequently, the situation in this case does not fall within the area which we have indicated as lying outside the scope of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. It is clear, however, that workers in the mines seized by the Government under the authority of the War Labor Disputes Act stand in an entirely different relationship to the Federal Government with respect to their employment from that which existed before the seizure was effected. That Congress intended such to be the case is apparent both from the terms of the statute and from the legislative deliberations preceding its enactment. Section 3 of the War Labor Disputes Act calls for the seizure of any plant, mine, or facility when the President finds that the operation thereof is threatened by strike or other labor disturbance and that an interruption in production will unduly impede the war effort. Congress intended that by virtue of Government seizure, a mine should become, for purposes of production and operation, a Government facility in as complete a sense as if the Government held full title and ownership. Consistently with that view, criminal penalties were provided for interference with the operation of such facilities. Also included were procedures for adjusting wages and conditions of employment of the workers in such a manner as to avoid interruptions in production. The question with which we are confronted is not whether the workers in mines under Government seizure are “employees” of the Federal Government for every purpose which might be conceived, but whether, for the purposes of this case, the incidents of the relationship existing between the Government and the workers are those of governmental employer and employee.
Executive Order 9728, in pursuance of which the Government seized possession of the mines, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate with the representatives of the miners, and thereafter to apply to the National Wage Stabilization Board for appropriate changes in terms and conditions of employment for the period of governmental operation. Such negotiations were undertaken and resulted in the Krug-Lewis agreement. That agreement contains many basic departures from the earlier contract entered into between the mine workers and the private operators on April 11, 1945, which, except as amended and supplemented by the Krug-Lewis agreement, was continued in effect for the period of Government possession. Among the terms of the Krug-Lewis agreement were provisions for a new mine safety code. Operating managers were directed to provide the mine employees with the protection and benefits of Workmen’s Compensation and Occupational Disease Laws. Provision was made for a Welfare and Retirement Fund and a Medical and Hospital Fund. The agreement granted substantial wage increases and contained terms relating to vacations and vacation pay. Included were provisions calling for changes in equitable grievance procedures.
It should be observed that the Krug-Lewis agreement was one solely between the Government and the union. The private mine operators were not parties to the contract nor were they made parties to any of its subsequent modifications. It should also be observed that the provisions relate to matters which normally constitute the subject matter of collective bargaining between employer and employee. Many of the provisions incorporated into the agreement for the period of Government operation had theretofore been vigorously opposed by the private operators and have not subsequently received their approval.
It is descriptive of the situation to state that the Government, in order to maintain production and to accomplish the purposes of the seizure, has substituted itself for the private employer in dealing with those matters which formerly were the subject of collective bargaining between the union and the operators. The defendants by their conduct have given practical recognition to this fact. The union negotiated a collective agreement with the Government and has made use of the procedures provided by the War Labor Disputes Act to modify its terms and conditions. The union has apparently regarded the Krug-Lewis agreement as a sufficient contract of employment to satisfy the mine workers’ traditional demand of a contract as a condition precedent to their work. The defendant Lewis, in responding to a suggestion of the Secretary of the Interior that certain union demands should be taken to the private operators with the view of making possible the termination of Government possession, stated in a letter dated November 15, 1946: “The Government of the United States seized the mines and entered into a contract. The mine workers do not propose to deal with parties who have no status under that contract.” The defendant Lewis in the same letter referred to the operators as “strangers to the Krug-Lewis Agreement” and to the miners as the “400,000 men who now serve the Government of the United States in the bituminous coal mines.”
The defendants, however, point to the fact that the private managers of the mines have been retained by the Government in the role of operating managers with substantially the same functions and authority. It is true that the regulations for the operation of the mines issued by the Coal Mines Administrator provide for the retention of the private managers to assist in the realization of the objects of Government seizure and operation. The regulations, however, also provide for the removal of such operating managers at the discretion of the Coal Mines Administrator. Thus the Government, though utilizing the services of the private managers, has nevertheless retained ultimate control.
The defendants also point to the regulations which provide that none of the earnings or liabilities resulting from the operation of the mines, while under seizure, are for the account or at the risk or expense of the Government; that the companies continue tobe liable for all Federal, State, and local taxes; and that the mining companies remain subject to suit. The regulations on which defendants rely represent an attempt on the part of the Coal Mines Administrator to define the respective powers and obligations of the Government and private operators during the period of Government control. We do not at this time express any opinion as to the validity of these regulations. It is sufficient to state that, in any event, the matters to which they refer have little persuasive weight in determining the nature of the relation existing between the Government and the mine workers.
We do not find convincing the contention of the defendants that in seizing and operating the coal mines the Government was not exercising a sovereign function and that, hence, this is not a situation which can be excluded from the terms of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. In the Executive Order which directed the seizure of the mines, the President found and proclaimed that “the coal produced by such mines is required for the war effort and is indispensable for the continued operation of the national economy during the transition from war to peace; that the war effort will be unduly impeded or delayed by... interruptions [in production]; and that the exercise... of the powers vested in me is necessary to insure the operation of such mines in the interest of the war effort and to preserve the national economic structure in the present emergency... Under the conditions found by the President to exist, it would be difficult to conceive of a more vital and urgent function of the Government than the seizure and operation of the bituminous coal mines. We hold that in a case such as this, where the Government has seized actual possession of the mines, or other facilities, and is operating them, and the relationship between the Government and the workers is that of employer and employee, the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not apply.
II.
Although we have held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not render injunctive relief beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court, there are alternative grounds which support the power of the District Court to punish violations of its orders as criminal contempt.
Attention must be directed to the situation obtaining on November 18. The Government’s complaint sought a declaratory judgment in respect to the right of the defendants to terminate the contract by unilateral action. What amounted to a strike call, effective at midnight on November 20, had been issued by the defendant Lewis as an “official notice.” Pending a determination of defendants’ right to take this action, the Government requested a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief. The memorandum in support of the restraining order seriously urged the inapplicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to the facts of this case, and the power of the District Court to grant the ancillary relief depended in great part upon the resolution of this jurisdictional question. In these circumstances, the District Court unquestionably had the power to issue a restraining order for the purpose of preserving existing conditions pending a decision upon its own jurisdiction.
The temporary restraining order was served on November 18. This was roughly two and one-half days before the strike was to begin. The defendants filed no motion to vacate the order. Rather, they ignored it, and allowed a nationwide coal strike to become an accomplished fact. This Court has used unequivocal language in condemning such conduct, and has in United States v. Shipp, 203 U. S. 563 (1906), provided protection for judicial authority in situations of this kind. In that case this Court had allowed an appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the Circuit Court of Tennessee. The petition had been filed by Johnson, then confined under a sentence of death imposed by a state court. Pending the appeal, this Court issued an order staying all proceedings against Johnson. However, the prisoner was taken from jail and lynched. Shipp, the sheriff having custody of Johnson, was charged with conspiring with others for the purpose of lynching Johnson, with intent to show contempt for the order of this Court. Shipp denied the jurisdiction of this Court to punish for contempt on the ground that the stay order was issued pending an appeal over which this Court had no jurisdiction because the constitutional questions alleged were frivolous and only a pretense. The Court, through Mr. Justice Holmes, rejected the contention as to want of jurisdiction, and in ordering the contempt to be tried, stated:
“We regard this argument as unsound. It has been held, it is true, that orders made by a court having no jurisdiction to make them may be disregarded without liability to process for contempt. In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713; Ex parte Rowland, 104 U. S. 604. But even if the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to entertain Johnson’s petition, and if this court had no jurisdiction of the appeal, this court, and this court alone, could decide that such was the law. It and it alone necessarily had jurisdiction to decide whether the case was properly before it. On that question, at least, it was its duty to permit argument and to take the time required for such consideration as it might need. See Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 387. Until its judgment declining jurisdiction should be announced, it had authority from the necessity of the case to make orders to preserve the existing conditions and the subject of the petition, just as the state court was bound to refrain from further proceedings until the same time. Rev. Stat. § 766; act of March 3, 1893, c. 226, 27 Stat. 751. The fact that the petitioner was entitled to argue his case shows what needs no proof, that the law contemplates the possibility of a decision either way, and therefore must provide for it.” 203 U. S. 573.
If this Court did not
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellants, citizens of Sumter County, S. C., have taken an appeal from a summary judgment entered against them on February 17, 1981, by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The three-judge District Court concluded that Sumter County in June 1979 had made a preclearance submission under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, when it wrote the United States Attorney General informing him that a referendum had approved at-large County Council elections. Because the Attorney General failed to object within 60 days to the claimed preclearance submission, the District Court permitted Sumter County to proceed with at-large elections for its County Council. We hold that the county’s June 1979 letter was a reconsideration request, not a preclearance submission, and reverse.
I
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act provides that when a covered political subdivision enacts a voting procedure different from that in effect on November 1, 1964, the political subdivision must either seek a declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia approving the procedure or submit it to the United States Attorney General for preclearance. If the procedure is submitted to the Attorney General and he does not interpose an objection to the preclearance submission within 60 days, the procedure may be enforced.
On November 1,1964, Sumter County was governed by its South Carolina General Assembly delegation acting through a County Board of Supervisors. In 1967, the General Assembly enacted a local bill that established a new form of government for Sumter County, namely, a seven-member County Commission elected at-large. See 1967 S. C. Acts, No. 371. Although this change required preclearance under §5 of the Voting Rights Act, no steps were taken to obtain preclearance and at-large elections were held in 1968, 1970, 1972, and 1974.
In 1975, the General Assembly passed, and the Governor approved, the State’s Home Rule Act, 1975 S. C. Acts, No. 283, codified as S. C. Code § 4-9-10 et seq. (1976 and Supp. 1980). The Act permitted a South Carolina county to hold a referendum to select a form of local government and to choose between at-large and single-member district elections. § 4-9-10. The Act specifically provided that if Sumter County did not hold a referendum, it would be assigned, effective July 1, 1976, the council-administrator form of government with council members elected at-large. § 4-9-10(b).
The Home Rule Act was submitted to the Attorney General of the United States for preclearance. The Attorney General did not interpose an objection to the Act, as such, but he indicated that the outcomes of Home Rule Act refer-enda or assignments of forms of government under the Act would be subject to preclearance.
Sumter County chose not to hold a referendum. Accordingly, it was assigned the council-administrator form of government with at-large elections. The County Council passed a resolution and ordinance adopting that form of government and method of election.
On August 13, 1976, the County Administrator submitted the Sumter County Home Rule Ordinance and the 1967 Act to the Attorney General for preclearance. On December 3, after having obtained necessary additional information, see 28 CFR §51.18 (1980), the Attorney General made a timely objection to the at-large method of election of the Council. He interposed no objection to the council-administrator form of government.
The county requested the Attorney General to reconsider his objection to at-large elections, see § 51.21(b), and the county and the Attorney General continued to correspond during 1977 and 1978. In early 1978, the county asked whether the Attorney General would withdraw his objection if a county referendum endorsed the at-large method of election. On April 28 of that year, the Attorney General declined to withdraw the objection and advised the county that a favorable referendum result, by itself, would not cause him to change his mind.
A Council election was scheduled for June 13, 1978. After the Attorney General refused to withdraw his objection, private parties and the United States brought separate federal suits to prevent elections under the at-large system. The two suits were consolidated. A single judge issued a temporary restraining order, and on June 21, 1978, a three-judge District Court permanently enjoined County Council elections until the requirements of the Voting Rights Act were fulfilled.
In November 1978, Sumter County went ahead with its referendum in which voters were asked whether they preferred that Council members be elected at-large or from single-member districts. The majority endorsed the at-large method. Because Council members already were being elected under the at-large system, the county did not enact any resolution or ordinance to adopt the results of the referendum.
Then came the critical exchange of correspondence. On June 4, 1979, the Attorney General received a letter, dated June 1, from the county advising him of the referendum results. The letter expressed doubt as to whether it was a new preclearance submission of the at-large method, see 28 CFR § 51.2(c) (1980), or a request that the Attorney General reconsider his earlier objection to at-large elections, see § 51.21. Subsequently, on July 23, a conference was held in Washington, D. C., between county officials and representatives of the Department of Justice. See § 51.23. Fifteen days later, see § 51.24, on August 7, the Attorney General, referring to the county’s letter as a “request for reconsideration,” refused to withdraw the objection to at-large elections, but advised the county that the Department of Justice had not yet completed its review. On September 27, the Attorney General for a second time refused to withdraw his objection. See §51.25.
Thereafter, the defendant-appellees moved the District Court for summary judgment. They contended that the June letter was a preclearance submission, not a request for reconsideration. Section 5, the appellees noted, requires the Attorney General to object within 60 days of a preclearance submission. They asserted that, since the Attorney General did not interpose an objection by August 3, the county was free under § 5 to proceed with at-large elections.
A three-judge District Court was again convened. It agreed with appellees. 509 P. Supp. 1334 (1981). Referring to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the court observed that the 1978 referendum approved a method of electing county officials different from that in effect on November 1, 1964. The letter received June 4, 1979, according to the District Court, was the required preclearance submission. Rejecting the Attorney General’s argument that the letter was a request for reconsideration of his timely 1976 objection to at-large elections, the District Court declared: “This Court will not be a party to the [Attorney General’s] effort to excuse his failure to act by mislabeling a submission for preclearance as a ‘request for reconsideration.’” 509 F. Supp., at 1336.
hH I — I
We conclude that the District Court, not the Attorney General, mislabeled the June 1979 letter. The court ruled that that letter was a preclearance submission because the referendum approved a method of selecting officials different from that in effect on November 1, 1964. But the change to at-large County Council elections already had been submitted to the Attorney General for preclearance. The 1978 referendum merely approved the pre-existing at-large method — the very method to which the Attorney General earlier had made a timely objection. Because the referendum did no more than endorse a method of election that previously had been submitted to the Attorney General and that was the subject of an outstanding objection, the June letter did not amount to a new preclearance submission.
Indeed, the June letter fell squarely within the definition of a reconsideration request. The applicable regulation provides that the Attorney General will reconsider his objection upon a request by a submitting authority “to present further substantiating or explanatory information which was not previously available to the submitting authority.” 28 CFR § 51.21(b) (1980). The results of the referendum constituted further explanatory information concerning at-large elections which the county asked the Attorney General to consider. The June letter thus was nothing more than a request that the Attorney General reconsider his earlier objection to at-large County Council elections in light of the referendum results.
The District Court put forward several reasons why, in its view, the June letter was not a reconsideration request. None of them persuades us. First, the District Court pointed out that the county already had made one reconsideration request. But the regulations do not limit a political subdivision to a single request for reconsideration.. Second, the court relied upon 28 CFR § 51.21(b) (1980), which requires that a reconsideration request be made within 10 days of the Attorney General’s objection. The Attorney General, however, follows the laudable practice of accepting reconsideration requests even though they are untimely, thus considering possibly important information that was not available within 10 days of the original objection. See also §51.25 (permitting the Attorney General to reconsider his objection on his own motion). In any event, the mere fact that a reconsideration request is untimely does not convert it into a preclearance submission. Third, the court also cited § 51.21(b) for the proposition that a reconsideration request must be based on information not previously available. That requirement poses no obstacle to considering the June letter a reconsideration request, because the outcome of the referendum constituted information not previously available to Sumter County authorities. And, just as a reconsideration request does not become a preclearance submission merely by being untimely, so a reconsideration request does not become a preclearance submission simply by being repetitive.
Not only does the District Court decision mischaracterize the June letter, but its decision also has undesirable results. Under that court’s ruling, a political subdivision could recommence the 60-day period at will by readopting the contested voting procedure. In addition, the Attorney General would be forced to interpose redundant objections to the same change in voting laws. For these reasons also, we refuse to accept the District Court’s interpretation of § 5.
Finally, we have frequently stated that courts should grant deference to the interpretation given statutes and regulations by the officials charged with their administration. See, e. g., Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U. S. 555 (1980); United States v. Sheffield Board of Comm’rs, 435 U. S. 110, 131 (1978); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 (1965). In this case, the Attorney General employed reasonable definitions of a preclearance submission and of a reconsideration request when he treated the June letter as in the latter category. Indeed, the Attorney General followed the more sensible course.
The judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
The Chief Justice concurs in the judgment.
Section 5, as amended, reads in pertinent part as follows:
“Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b(a) of this title based upon determinations made under the first sentence of section 1973b(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, . . . such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, . . . and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission. . . . Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.”
The Attorney General acted through the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division.
The letter states: “We are uncertain as to whether this submission should be termed a ‘new submission,’ or a ‘request’ for reconsideration of the Attorney General’s objection to the County’s original submission.” 1 Record, Defendants’ Exhibit 7, p. 3, attached to County Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed with the District Court on Jan. 25, 1980.
Section 51.24 reads:
“An objection shall be withdrawn if the submitting authority can produce information not previously available to it which satisfies the Attorney General that the change does not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect. The Attorney General shall notify the submitting authority within 60 days of the request for reconsideration (provided that the Attorney General shall have at least 15 days following any conference that is held in which to decide) of his decision to continue or withdraw an objection, giving the reasons for his decision. A copy of the notification shall be sent to any party that has commented on the submission or has requested notice of the Attorney General’s action thereon.”
The District Court in its opinion, 509 F. Supp. 1334 (1981), omitted mention of the August 7 letter, which is Defendants’ Exhibit 8 attached to the motion for summary judgment. The court stated that the Attorney General did not take action following the July 23 conference until he refused to withdraw his objection on September 27. 509 F. Supp., at 1336. In this respect, the decision of the District Court was clearly erroneous.
Once it concluded that the June letter was a preclearance submission, the District Court found that the Attorney General’s actions were untimely. But it can hardly be said that the Attorney General failed to act in response to the June letter. We note again that Department of Justice officials held a conference with Sumter County officials on July 23, that the Attorney General refused to withdraw his objection on August 7, within 15 days of that conference, and that the Attorney General once more, on September 27, refused to withdraw his objection.
Before the District Court, there was a dispute whether the June letter was accompanied by a multipage document supplying, inter alia, the information required by 28 CFR §51.10 (1980), or whether that document was first presented to the Department of Justice at the July 23 conference. If the document was not presented until July 23, the Attorney General’s August 7 letter might not have been untimely even if the June letter were a preclearance submission. See §§ 51.3(b) and 51.18(a). See also City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 171 (1980). Because we hold that the June letter was not a preclearance submission, we need not address this issue.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner Jalil Abdul-Kabir, formerly known as Ted Calvin Cole, contends that there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial judge’s instructions to the Texas jury that sentenced him to death prevented jurors from giving meaningful consideration to constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence. He further contends that the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) denying his application for postconviction relief on November 24, 1999, misapplied the law as clearly established by earlier decisions of this Court, thereby warranting relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2254. We agree with both contentions. Although the relevant state-court judgment for purposes of our review under AEDPA is that adjudicating the merits of Cole’s state habeas application, in which these claims were properly raised, we are persuaded that the same result would be dictated by those cases decided before the state trial court entered its judgment affirming Cole’s death sentence on September 26, 1990. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I
In December 1987, Cole, his stepbrother Michael Hickey, and Michael’s wife, Kelly, decided to rob and kill Kelly’s grandfather, Raymond Richardson, to obtain some cash. Two days later they did so. Cole strangled Richardson with a dog leash; the group then searched the house and found $20 that they used to purchase beer and food. The next day, Michael and Kelly surrendered to the police and confessed. The police then arrested Cole who also confessed.
Cole was tried by a jury and convicted of capital murder. After a sentencing hearing, the jury was asked to answer two special issues:.
“Was the conduct of the defendant, TED CALVIN COLE, that caused the death of the deceased, RAYMOND C. RICHARDSON, committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result?
“Is there a probability that the defendant, TED CALVIN COLE, would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society?” App. 127,128.
The trial judge instructed the jury to take into consideration evidence presented at the guilt phase as well as the sentencing phase of the trial but made no reference to mitigating evidence. Under the provisions of the Texas criminal code, the jury’s affirmative answers to these two special issues required the judge to impose a death sentence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071 (Vernon 2006).
At the sentencing hearing, the State introduced evidence that Cole pleaded guilty to an earlier murder when he was only 16. Shortly after being released on parole, Cole pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated sexual assault on two boys and was sentenced to 15 more years in prison. As evidence of Cole’s propensity for future dangerousness, the State introduced Cole’s diary which, according to the State’s expert psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Coons, revealed a compulsive attraction to young boys and an obsession with criminal activity. Dr. Coons described Cole as a sociopath who lacked remorse and would not profit or learn from his experiences.
In response, Cole presented two categories of mitigating evidence. The first consisted of testimony from his mother and his aunt, who described his unhappy childhood. Cole’s parents lived together “off and on” for 10 years, over the course of which they had two children, Cole, and his younger sister, Carla. App. 35. Shortly after Cole was born, his father was arrested for robbing a liquor store. Cole’s father deserted the family several times, abandoning the family completely before Cole was five years old. On the last occasion that Cole saw his father, he dropped Cole off a block from where he thought Cole’s mother lived, told Cole to “go find her,” and drove off. Id., at 42. Cole had no contact with his father during the next 10 years. Ibid. After Cole’s father left, his mother found herself unable to care for Cole and his sister and took the children to live with her parents in Oklahoma. Cole’s grandparents were both alcoholics — Cole’s mother was herself a self-described “drunk”— and lived miles away from other children. Eventually, because Cole’s grandparents did not want their daughter or her children living with them, Cole’s mother placed him in a church-run children’s home, although she kept her daughter with her. Over the next five years Cole’s mother visited him only twice. Cole’s aunt, who visited him on holidays, testified that Cole seemed incapable of expressing any emotion and that his father never visited him at all.
The second category of mitigating evidence came from two expert witnesses — a psychologist and the former chief mental health officer for the Texas Department of Corrections— who discussed the consequences of Cole’s childhood neglect and abandonment. Dr. Jarvis Wright, the psychologist, spent 8 to 10 hours interviewing Cole and administering an “extensive battery of psychological tests.” Id., at 63. He testified that Cole had “real problems with impulse control” apparently resulting from “central nervous damage” combined with “all the other factors of [his] background.” Id., at 69. He also testified that Cole had likely been depressed for much of his life, that he had a “painful” background, and that he had “never felt loved and worthwhile in his life.” Id., at 73,86. Providing an analogy for Cole’s early development, Dr. Wright stated that “the manufacturing process [had] botched the raw material horribly.” Id., at 73.
When specifically asked about future dangerousness, Dr. Wright acknowledged that “if Ted were released today on the street, there’s a much greater probability of dangerous behavior than with the rest of us.” Id., at 74. Although he acknowledged the possibility of change or “burn out,” he admitted that Cole would likely pose a threat of future dangerousness until “years from now.” Ibid. Except for his prediction that Cole would change as he grew older, Dr. Wright’s testimony did not contradict the State’s claim that Cole was a dangerous person, but instead sought to provide an explanation for his behavior that might reduce his moral culpability.
Dr. Wendell Dickerson, a psychologist who had not previously examined Cole, observed that it was difficult to predict future dangerousness, but that “violent conduct is predominantly, overwhelmingly the province of the young” with the risk of violence becoming rare as people grow older. Id., at 95. On cross-examination, in response to a hypothetical question about a person with Cole’s character and history, Dr. Dickerson acknowledged that he would be “alarmed” about the future conduct of such a person because “yes, there absolutely is a probability that they would commit... future acts of violence.” Id., at 113. In sum, the strength of Cole’s mitigating evidence was not its potential to contest his immediate dangerousness, to which end the experts’ testimony was at least as harmful as it was helpful. Instead, its strength was its tendency to prove that his violent propensities were caused by factors beyond his control — namely, neurological damage and childhood neglect and abandonment.
It was these latter considerations, however, that the prosecutor discouraged jurors from taking into account when formulating their answers to the special issues. During the voir dire, the prosecutor advised the jurors that they had a duty to answer the special issues based on the facts, and the extent to which such facts objectively supported findings of deliberateness and future dangerousness, rather than their views about what might be an appropriate punishment for this particular defendant. For example, juror Beeson was asked:
“[I]f a person had a bad upbringing, but looking at those special issues, you felt that they [sic] met the standards regarding deliberateness and being a continuing threat to society, could you still vote ‘yes,’ even though you felt like maybe they’d [sic] had a rough time as a kid? If you felt that the facts brought to you by the prosecution warranted a ‘yes’ answer, could you put that out of your mind and just go by the facts?
“[T]hat would not keep you from answering ‘yes,’ just because a person had a poor upbringing, would it?” XI Voir Dire Statement of Facts filed in No. CR88-G043-A (Dist. Ct. Tom Green Cty., Tex., 51st Jud. Dist.), p. 1588.
The prosecutor began his final closing argument with a reminder to the jury that during the voir dire they had “promised the State that, if it met its burden of proof,” they would answer “yes” to both special issues. App. 145. The trial judge refused to give any of several instructions requested by Cole that would have authorized a negative answer to either of the special issues on the basis of “any evidence which, in [the jury’s] opinion, mitigate[d] against the imposition of the Death Penalty, including any aspect of the Defendant’s character or record.” Id., at 115; see also id., at 117-124. Ultimately, the jurors answered both issues in the affirmative, and Cole was sentenced to death.
On direct appeal, the sole issue raised by Cole was that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The CCA rejected Cole’s claim and affirmed the judgment of the trial court on September 26,1990.
11
On March 2, 1992, the lawyer who then represented Cole filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Texas trial court, alleging 21 claims of error. Counsel later withdrew, and after delays caused in part by a letter from Cole to the trial judge stating that he wished to withdraw his “appeal,” the judge ultimately “had petitioner bench warranted” to a hearing on September 4,1998. Id., at 152-153. During that hearing, Cole advised the court that he wished to proceed with his habeas proceedings and to have the CCA appoint counsel to represent him. Without counsel having been appointed to represent Cole, and without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered its findings and conclusions recommending denial of the application.
Three of Cole’s 21 claims related to the jury’s inability to consider mitigating evidence. The trial judge rejected the first — “that his mitigating evidence was not able to be properly considered and given effect by the jury under the special issues,” id., at 157 — because he concluded that the record, and “especially” the testimony of the two expert witnesses, “provide[d] a basis for the jury to sufficiently consider the mitigating evidence offered by petitioner,” id., at 161. With respect to Cole’s second claim, the judge agreed that appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to assign error based on “the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on mitigating evidence as contemplated by the Pendry [sic] decision.” Id., at 166. He nevertheless found that the result on appeal would have been the same had the point been raised. Ibid. On the third claim relating to mitigating evidence, the judge rejected Cole’s argument that the trial court’s failure to specifically instruct the jury to consider mitigating evidence and offer a definition of “mitigating” was error. Id., at 173.
Over the dissent of two members of the court, and after adopting the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with only minor changes, the CCA denied Cole’s application for state collateral relief. Ex parte Cole, No. 41,673-01 (Nov. 24, 1999) (per curiam), App. 178-179.
Ill
After the Federal District Court granted Cole’s motion for the appointment of counsel, he filed a timely petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2254. His principal claim then, as it is now, was that the sentencing jury “was unable to consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence in his case,” in violation of the Constitution. Cole v. Johnson, Civ. Action No. 6:00-CV-014-C (ND Tex., Mar. 6, 2001), p. 5, App. 184.
In its opinion denying relief, the District Court began by summarizing Cole’s mitigating evidence, highlighting his “destructive family background.” Ibid. The court then correctly described our decision in Penry I, 492 U. S. 302 (1989), in these words:
“In [Penry] the Supreme Court found that when the defendant places mitigating evidence before the jury, Texas juries must be given instructions which allow the jury to give effect to that mitigating evidence and to express its reasoned moral response to that evidence in determining whether to impose the death penalty.” Civ. Action No. 6:00-CV-014-C, at 8-9, App. 188.
The court next noted that the Fifth Circuit had formulated its own analysis for evaluating Penry claims. Under that analysis, for mitigating evidence to be constitutionally relevant, it “must show (1) a uniquely severe permanent handicap with which the defendant is burdened through no fault of his own,... and (2) that the criminal act was attributable to this severe permanent condition” Civ. Action No. 6:00— CV-014-C, at 9, App. 189 (quoting Davis v. Scott, 51 F. 3d 457, 460-461 (CA5 1995); internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added). Ultimately, Cole’s inability to show a “nexus” between his troubled family background and his commission of capital murder doomed his Penry claim. Civ. Action No. 6:00-CV-014-C, at 13, App. 193.
The Court of Appeals denied Cole’s application for a certificate of appealability (COA), Cole v. Dretke, 99 Fed. Appx. 523 (CA5 2004), holding that “reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s conclusion that Cole’s evidence was not constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence,” Cole v. Dretke, 418 F. 3d 494,498 (CA5 2005). Shortly thereafter, however, we held that the Fifth Circuit’s “screening test” for determining the “‘constitutional relevance’” of mitigating evidence had “no foundation in the decisions of this Court.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U. S. 274, 284 (2004). Accordingly, we vacated its order denying a COA in this case and remanded for further proceedings. Abdul-Kabir v. Dretke, 543 U. S. 985 (2004). On remand, the Court of Appeals reviewed Cole’s Penry claim on the merits and affirmed the District Court’s judgment denying the writ.
Focusing primarily on the testimony of petitioner’s two experts rather than that of his mother and his aunt, the Court of Appeals reviewed our recent decisions and concluded “that the Texas special issues allowed the jury to give ‘full consideration and full effect’ to the mitigating evidence that Cole presented at the punishment phase of his trial.” 418 F. 3d, at 511. With two judges dissenting, the court denied the petition for rehearing en banc. We consolidated this case with Brewer v. Quarterman, post, p. 286, and granted certiorari, 549 U. S. 974 (2006).
IV
Because Cole filed his federal habeas petition after the effective date of AEDPA, the provisions of that Act govern the scope of our review. We must therefore ask whether the CCA’s adjudication of Cole’s claim on the merits “resulted in a decision that 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). We conclude that it did.
A careful review of our jurisprudence in this area makes clear that well before our decision in Penry I, our cases had firmly established that sentencing juries must be able to give meaningful consideration and effect to all mitigating evidence that might provide a basis for refusing to impose the death penalty on a particular individual, notwithstanding the severity of his crime or his potential to commit similar offenses in the future. Three of the five cases decided on the same day in 1976 — Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242, and Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 — identified the background principles we would apply in later cases to evaluate specific rules inhibiting the jury’s ability to give meaningful effect to such mitigating evidence.
In Woodson v. North Carolina, we invalidated a statute that made death the mandatory sentence for all persons convicted of first-degree murder. One of the statute’s constitutional shortcomings was its “failure to allow the particularized consideration of relevant aspects of the character and record of each convicted defendant before the imposition upon him of a sentence of death.” 428 U. S., at 303 (plurality opinion). In Proffitt v. Florida and Jurek v. Texas, the joint opinions rejected facial challenges to the sentencing statutes enacted in Florida and Texas, assuming in both cases that provisions allowing for the unrestricted admissibility of mitigating evidence would ensure that a sentencing jury had adequate guidance in performing its sentencing function. As a majority of the Court later acknowledged, our holding in Jurek did not preclude the possibility that the Texas sentencing statute might be found unconstitutional as applied in a particular case. See n. 15, infra.
Two years later, in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978), a plurality concluded “that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer, in all but the rarest kind of capital case, not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Id., at 604 (footnote omitted). Because Ohio’s death penalty statute was inconsistent with this principle, it was declared unconstitutional. The plurality noted the possible tension between a holding that the Ohio statute was invalid and our decisions in Proffitt and Jurek upholding the Florida and Texas statutes, but distinguished those cases because neither statute “clearly operated at that time to prevent the sentencer from considering any aspect of the defendant’s character and record or any circumstances of his offense as an independently mitigating factor.” 438 U. S., at 607.
While Chief Justice Burger’s opinion in Lockett was joined by only three other Justices, the rule it announced was endorsed and broadened in our subsequent decisions in Ed-dings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982), and Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1 (1986). In those cases, we emphasized the severity of imposing a death sentence and that “the sentencer in capital cases must be permitted to consider any relevant mitigating factor.” Eddings, 455 U. S., at 112 (emphasis added).
In the wake of our decision in Lockett, Ohio amended its capital sentencing statute to give effect to Lockett's holding. Neither Florida nor Texas did so, however, until after our unanimous decision in Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U. S. 393 (1987), unequivocally confirmed the settled quality of the Lockett rule. As Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court explained, the defendant had introduced some rather atypical mitigating evidence that was not expressly authorized by the Florida statute:
“In the sentencing phase of this case, petitioner’s counsel introduced before the advisory jury evidence that as a child petitioner had the habit of inhaling gasoline fumes from automobile gas tanks; that he had once passed out after doing so; that thereafter his mind tended to wander; that petitioner had been one of seven children in a poor family that earned its living by picking cotton; that his father had died of cancer; and that petitioner had been a fond and affectionate uncle to the children of one of his brothers.” 481 U. S., at 397.
As the opinion further explained, the Florida courts had construed the state statute to preclude consideration of mitigating factors unmentioned in the statute. Accordingly, despite our earlier decision in Proffitt upholding the statute against a facial challenge, it was necessary to set aside Hitchcock’s death sentence. We explained:
“We think it could not be clearer that the advisory jury was instructed not to consider, and the sentencing judge refused to consider, evidence of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, and that the proceedings therefore did not comport with the requirements of Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1 (1986), Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982), and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978) (plurality opinion). Respondent has made no attempt to argue that this error was harmless, or that it had no effect on the jury or the sentencing judge. In the absence of such a showing our cases hold that the exclusion of mitigating evidence of the sort at issue here renders the death sentence invalid. See Skipper, supra (evidence that defendant had adapted well to prison life); Eddings, supra (evidence of 16-year-old defendant’s troubled family history and emotional disturbance).” 481 U. S., at 398-399.
Of course, our reference to “exclusion” of the evidence did not refer to its admissibility, but rather to its exclusion from meaningful consideration by the jury. Had Jurek and Proffitt truly stood for the proposition that the mere availability of relevant mitigating evidence was sufficient to satisfy the Constitution’s requirements, Hitchcock could never have been decided as it was.
In the year following our decision in Hitchcock, we made clear that sentencing under the Texas statute, like that under the Florida statute, must accord with the Lockett rule. In Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U. S. 164, 172, 177, 183 (1988), the plurality rejected the claim that the judge’s instructions did not allow the jury to give adequate weight to whatever “ ‘residual doubts’ ” it may have had concerning the defendant’s guilt, or to evidence of the petitioner’s good behavior while in prison. That particular holding is unremarkable because we have never held that capital defendants have an Eighth Amendment right to present “residual doubt” evidence at sentencing, see Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U. S. 517, 523-527 (2006), and in most cases evidence of good behavior in prison is primarily, if not exclusively, relevant to the issue of future dangerousness. What makes Franklin significant, however, is the separate opinion of Justice O’Connor, and particularly those portions of her opinion expressing the views of five Justices, see infra, at 253, and n. 15. After summarizing the cases that clarified Jurek’s holding, she wrote:
“In my view, the principle underlying Lockett, Ed-dings, and Hitchcock is that punishment should be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal defendant.
“ ‘[E]vidence about the defendant’s background and character is relevant because of the belief, long held by this society, that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to a disadvantaged background, or to emotional and mental problems, may be less culpable than defendants who have no such excuse.... Thus, the sentence imposed at the penalty stage should reflect a reasoned moral response to the defendant’s background, character, and crime.’ California v. Brown, 479 U. S. 538, 545 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (emphasis in original).
“In light of this principle it is clear that a State may not constitutionally prevent the sentencing body from giving effect to evidence relevant to the defendant’s background or character or the circumstances of the offense that mitigates against the death penalty. Indeed, the right to have the sentencer consider and weigh relevant mitigating evidence would be meaningless unless the sentencer was also permitted to give effect to its consideration.
“Under the sentencing procedure followed in this case the jury could express its views about the appropriate punishment only by answering the special verdict questions regarding the deliberateness of the murder and the defendant’s future dangerousness. To the extent that the mitigating evidence introduced by petitioner was relevant to one of the special verdict questions, the jury was free to give effect to that evidence by returning a negative answer to that question. If, however, petitioner had introduced mitigating evidence about his background or character or the circumstances of the crime that was not relevant to the special verdict questions, or that had relevance to the defendant’s moral culpability beyond the scope of the special verdict questions, the jury instructions would have provided the jury with no vehicle for expressing its ‘reasoned moral response’ to that evidence.” 487 U. S., at 184-185 (opinion concurring in judgment) (emphasis added).
Justice O’Connor’s opinion for the Court in Penry I endorsed the views she had expressed in Franklin and unquestionably governs the facts of this ease. Penry contended that his mitigating evidence of mental retardation and an abusive childhood provided a basis for a sentence of life imprisonment rather than death and that the jury should have been instructed that it could consider that evidence when making its sentencing decision. In response to that contention, our opinion first held that Penry was not asking us to make new law because he was relying on a rule that was “dictated” by earlier cases, see n. 10, supra, and explained why Justice O’Connor’s separate opinion in Franklin correctly defined the relevant rule of law. In Franklin, we noted, “both the concurrence and the dissent stressed that ‘the right to have the sentencer consider and weigh relevant mitigating evidence would be meaningless unless the sentencer was also permitted to give effect to its consideration’ in imposing sentence.” 492 U. S., at 321 (citing Franklin, 487 U. S., at 185 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 199 (Stevens, J., dissenting)).
Applying that standard, we held that neither the “deliberateness” nor the “future dangerousness” special issue provided the jury with a meaningful opportunity to give effect to Penry’s mitigating evidence. With respect to the former, we explained:
“In the absence of jury instructions defining ‘deliberately’ in a way that would clearly direct the jury to consider fully Penry’s mitigating evidence as it bears on his personal culpability, we cannot be sure that the jury was able to give effect to the mitigating evidence of Penry’s mental retardation and history of abuse in answering the first special issue. Without such a special instruction, a juror who believed that Penry’s retardation and background diminished his moral culpability and made imposition of the death penalty unwarranted would be unable to give effect to that conclusion if the juror also believed that Penry committed the crime ‘deliberately.’ Thus, we cannot be sure that the jury’s answer to the first special issue reflected a ‘reasoned moral response’ to Penry’s mitigating evidence.” 492 U. S., at 323.
With respect to the future dangerousness issue, we emphasized the fact that Penry’s evidence of mental retardation was relevant only as an aggravating factor. Id., at 323-324. More broadly, we noted that the evidence of Penry’s mental retardation and childhood abuse functioned as a “two-edged sword,” because it “may diminish his blameworthiness for his crime even as it indicates that there is a probability that he will be dangerous in the future.” Id., at 324. We therefore held that, in the absence of an appropriate instruction directing the “jury to consider fully” mitigating evidence as it bears on the extent to which a defendant is undeserving of a death sentence, “we cannot be sure” that it did so. Id., at 323. As our discussion of the deliberateness issue demonstrates, we did not limit our holding in Penry I to mitigating evidence that can only be viewed as aggravating. When the evidence proffered is double edged, or is as likely to be viewed as aggravating as it is as mitigating, the statute most obviously fails to provide for adequate consideration of such evidence.
The former special issues (as composed at the time of both Penry’s and Cole’s sentencing proceedings) provided an adequate vehicle for the evaluation of mitigating evidence offered to disprove deliberateness or future dangerousness. As Judge Reavley noted in his opinion for the Court of Appeals in Penry I, however, they did not tell the jury as to what “to do if it decided that Penry, because of retardation, arrested emotional development and a troubled youth, should not be executed.” Id., at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted).
V
In recommending denial of Cole’s application for collateral relief, the Texas trial judge did not analyze Penry I itself. Under the framework set forth in Penry I, the testimony of Cole’s mother and aunt, as well as the portions of the expert testimony suggesting that his dangerous character may have been the result of his rough childhood and possible neurological damage, were not relevant to either of the special^ verdiet questions, except, possibly, as evidence supporting the State’s argument that Cole would be dangerous in the future. This would not satisfy the requirement of Penry I, however, that the evidence be permitted its mitigating force beyond the scope of the special issues. Therefore, it would have followed that those questions failed to provide the jury with a vehicle for expressing its “reasoned moral response” to that evidence.
Instead of relying on Penry I, the trial judge relied on three later Texas cases and on our opinion in Graham v. Collins, 506 U. S. 461 (1993), as having held that nine different categories of mitigating evidence — including a tioubled family background, bipolar disorder, low IQ, substance abuse, paranoid personality disorder, and child abuse — were sufficiently considered under the Texas special issues. App. 159-160. Applying those cases, the judge defined the legal issue “whether the mitigating evidence can be sufficiently considered” as one that “must be determined on a case by case basis, depending on the nature of the mitigating evidence offered and whether there exists other testimony in the record that would allow consideration to be given.” Id., at 160. As we have noted, in endorsing this formulation of the issue, neither the trial judge nor the CCA had the benefit of any input from counsel representing petitioner. See Part II, supra. In our view, denying relief on the basis of that formulation of the issue, while ignoring the fundamental principles established by our most relevant precedents, resulted in a decision that was both “contrary to” and “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).
The state court’s primary reliance on Graham, to the exclusion of our other cases in this line of jurisprudence, was misguided. In Graham, we held that granting collateral relief to a defendant who had been sentenced to death in 1984 would require the announcement of a new rule of constitutional law in contravention of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). In reaching that conclusion we relied heavily on the fact that in 1984 it was reasonable for judges to rely on the interpretation of Jurek that the plurality had espoused in Franklin. See 506 U. S., at 468-472; see also n. 15, supra. But as we have explained, in both Franklin and Penry I, a majority of the Court ultimately rejected the plurality’s interpretation of Jurek. Neither Franklin nor Penry I was inconsistent with Graham's narrow holding, but they do suggest that our later decisions — including Johnson v. Texas, 509 U. S. 350 (1993), in which we refused to adopt the rule that Graham sought — are of more relevance to Cole’s case than Graham. The relevance of those cases lies not in their results — in several instances, we concluded, after applying the relevant law, that the special issues provided for adequate consideration of the defendant’s mitigating evidence — but in their failure to disturb the basic legal principle that continues to govern such cases: The jury must have a “meaningful basis to consider the relevant mitigating qualities” of the defendant’s proffered evidence. Johnson, 509 U. S., at 869; see also Graham, 506 U. S., at 474 (explaining that Penry was entitled to additional instructions “[b]eeause it was impossible [for the jury] to give meaningful mitigating effect to Penry’s evidence by way of answering the special issues”).
Before turning to those more recent cases, it is appropriate to identify the reasons why the CCA’s ruling was not a reasonable application of Penry I itself. First, the ruling ignored the fact that even though Cole’s mitigating evidence may not have been as persuasive as Penry’s, it was relevant to the question of Cole’s moral culpability for precisely the same reason as Penry’s. Like Penry’s evidence, Cole’s evidence of childhood deprivation and lack of self-control did not rebut either deliberateness or future dangerousness but was intended to provide the jury with an entirely different reason for not imposing a death sentence. Second, the judge’s assumption that it would be appropriate to look at “other testimony in the record” to determine whether the jury could give mitigating effect to the testimony of Cole’s mother and aunt is neither reasonable nor supported by the Penry opinion. App. 160. Third, the fact that the jury could give mitigating effect to some of the experts’ testimony, namely, then-predictions that Cole could be expected to become less dangerous as he aged, provides no support for the conclusion that the jury understood it could give such effect to other portions of the experts’ testimony or that of other witnesses. In sum, the judge ignored our entire line of cases establishing the importance of allowing juries to give meaningful effect to any mitigating evidence providing a basis for a sentence of life rather than death. His recommendation to the CCA was therefore unsupported by either the text or the reasoning in Penry I.
VI
The same principles originally set forth in earlier cases such as Lockett and Eddings have been articulated explicitly by our later cases, which explained that the jury must be permitted to “consider fully” such mitigating evidence and that such consideration “would be meaningless” unless the jury not only had such evidence available to it, but also was permitted to give that evidence meaningful, mitigating effect in imposing the ultimate sentence. Penry I, 492 U. S., at 321, 323 (internal quotation marks omitted); Graham, 506 U. S., at 475 (acknowledging that a “constitutional defect” has occurred not only when a jury is “precluded from even considering certain types of mitigating evidence,” but also when “the defendant’s evidence [i]s placed before the sentencer but the sentencer ha[s] no reliable means of giving mitigating effect to that evidence”).
Four of our more recent cases lend support to the conclusion that the CCA’s decision was unsupported by either the text or the reasoning of Penry I. In Johnson v. Texas, we held that the Texas special issues allowed adequate consideration of the petitioner’s youth as a mitigating circumstance. Indeed, we thought it “strainfed] credulity to suppose that the jury would have viewed the evidence of petitioner’s youth as outside its effective reach” because its relevance was so obvious. 509 U. S., at 368. There is of course a vast difference between youth — a universally applicable mitigating circumstance that every juror has experienced and which necessarily is transient — and the particularized childhood experiences of abuse and neglect that Penry I and Cole described — which presumably most jurors have never experienced and which affect each individual in a distinct manner
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In administering the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program of the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended (Act), 42 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., state agencies are required by § 402 (a) (7) of the Act, 81 Stat. 881, 42 U. S. C. §602 (a)(7), to “take into consideration . . . any expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of . . . income.” Such employment-related expenses are deducted from an AFDC applicant's- income in the process of determining eligibility for assistance. We granted certiorari, 414 U. S. 999 (1973), to determine whether, in light of § 402 (a)(7), a State may adopt a standardized allowance for expenses, attributable to the earning of income which does not alloxan applicant to deduct expenses that exceed.the standard',-. We hold that, it may not.
I
The AFDC.program is designed to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children and the parents or relatives who live with, and care for them. A principal purpose of the program, as indicated by 42 U. S. C. § 601, is to help such parents and relatives “to attain or retain capability for the maximum self-support and personal'independence consistent with the maintenance of continuing parental care and protection The program “is based on a scheme of cooperative federalism,” King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, 316 (1968). It is financed in large measure by the Federal Government on a matching-fund basis, and participating States, must submit AFDC plans in conformity with the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). The program is, however, administered by the States, which are given broad discretion in determining both the standard of need and the level of benefits. See Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 541 (1972); Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 408-409 (1970); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 478 (1970); King v. Smith, supra, at 318-319.
Under HEW regulations -all AFDC plans .must specify a statewide standard of need, which is the amount deemed necessary by the State to maintain a hypothetical family at a subsistence level. Both eligibility for AFDC assistance and the amount of benefits to be granted an individual applicant are based on a comparison of the State’s standard of need with the income and resources available to that applicant. 45 CFR § 233.20 (a)(2)(i). The “income and resources” attributable to an applicant, defined in 45 CFR §§ 233.20 (a)/6) (iii-viii), consist generally of “only such net income as is. actually availably for current use on a regular basis-. . . and only currently .available resources.” 45 CFR § 233.20 (a) (3) (ii)(c). See also HEW, Simplified Methods for Consideration of Income and Resources (1965). In determining net income, any expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of income are deducted from gross income. 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a)(7). If, taking into account, these deductions and other, deductions not at issue in the instant case, the net amount of “earned income” is less than the predetermined statewide standard of need, the applicant is eligible for participation in the program anid the ^mount of the'assistance payments will be based upon that difference; 45 CFR §§ 233.20 (a) (3) (ii) (a) and (c).
Prior to May 1970, Colorado’s AFDC regulations permitted the deduction from income of all expenses reasonably attributable tó employment, including but not limited to the actual cost of transportation, if “essential to retain employment.” Child care expenses and mandatory payroll deductions were also treated as employment-related expenses, and all such expenses were computed on an individualized basis. In May 1970, this policy was changed by the establishment of a maximum transportation work-expense allowance of either $30 per -month, if the use of a car was essential, or the actual expense of public transportation. Effective July 1, 1970, the Colorado work-expense allowance regulation was again amended to provide that in áddition to mandatory payroll, deductions and child care expenses: '
“For employment expenses such aá\transportation, special clothing, ■' union dues, special \¡education or training costs, telephone, additional, food or personal needs, etc., which are an obligation'due to the employment, an allowance of $30 per month is made for such costs.”
Thus, while Colorado continued to allow individualized treatment of mandatory payroll deductions and child care costs, all other, wprk-related expenses were subjected to a uniform allowance.of $30, even if an applicant could prove actual expenses in excess of that figure. The Regional Commissioner of the Social and Rehabilitation Sefvice of HEW thereafter accepted the incorporation of this provision into Colorado’s AFDC plan.
When this suit was commenced in July 1970, Mrs. Vialpando was' employed some eight miles from the small Colorado community in which she resided with her two-year-old daughter. Since no public transportation was available, respondent traveled to and from work each day in a used automobile she had purchased for that purpose. In making the requisite eligibility and assistance determinations under the Colorado AFDC program, Mrs. Vialpando had been permitted to deduct $47.30 in mileage costs and $63.81 'in car payments from her monthly gross income. These deductions of approximately $110 per month, coupled with child care and mandatory payroll deductions,- entitled her to an AFDC grant of $74 per month for herself and her daughter. The effect of the July 1970 amendment of the Colorado AFDC regulations was to reduce respondent’s monthly deductions for transportatipn expenses related to employment from $110 to $30. The corresponding increase in her monthly net earned income rendered her ineligible for continued AFDC assistance.
Respondent thereupon brought this class action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. §§ 1343 (3) and (4). She sought the convening of a three-judge District Court, and requested injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the Colorado standardized work-expense allowance violated § 402 (a)(7) of the Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Named as defendants were the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Social Services and other state officers involved in administering Colorado’s AFDC program. Upon stipulated facts and in reliance upon § 402 (a)(7) of the Act, the District Court in an unreported order grantee! respondent’s motion for summary judgment and enjoined enforcement of the challenged regulation. Finding the pendent federal statutory claim dispositive, the District Court properly did not reach the constitutional issue and properly did not convene a- three-judge court. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528 (1974).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 475 F. 2d 731 (1973). Relying on the language and the legislative history of § 402 (a) (7) and on other provisions of the Act, the. court interpreted the words “any expenses” in § 402 (a) (7) to mean “all actuál expenses,” and held that the standardized allowance did not meet this requirement. The court reasoned that the statute could be read to permit the use of a standardized allowance for employment expenses, but only where such an allowance was adequate to cover all actual expenses. We agree.
11
The Social Security Act of 1935, as originally enacted, 49 Stat. 620, did not expressly require that States allow AFDC beneficiaries to deduct from gross income expenses incurred in connection with the earning of income. The precursor to §402 (a) (7), which appeared in the 1939 amendments to the Act, 53 Stat. 1379, provided simply that
“the State agency shall, in determining need, take into consideration any other income and resources of any child claiming aid to dependent children.”
The Social Security Board, the federal entity then overseeing the categorical public assistance programs^soon recognized that under the predecessor of the AFDC'program recipient families with working members incurred certain employment-related expenses that reduced available income but were not taken into account by the States in determining eligibility for AFDC assistance. In keeping with the Act’s purpose of encouraging employment even when the income produced theréby did not eliminate entirely the need for public assistance, the Board recognized that a failure to. consider work-related expenses could result in a disincentive to seek or retain employment. Accordingly, the States were permitted but not required to allow credit for work-related expenses in determining eligibility.
As part of a general amendment of the Act in 1962, Pub. L. 87-543, 76 Stat. 185, Congress made mandatory the widespread but then optional practice of deducting employment expenses from total income in détermining eligibility for assistance. Section 402 (a) (7) of the Act as thus amended provided in relevant part:
“[T]he State agency shall, in determining need, take into consideration any other income and resources of-any child or relative claiming aid to families . with dependent children, as well as any expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of any such income•. . . .” (Emphasis added.)
By its terms, § 402 (a)(7) requires the consideration of “any” reasonable work expenses in determining eligibility 'for AFDC assistance. In light of the evolution of the statute and the normal meaning of the term “any,” we “read this, language as a congressional directive that no limitation, apart from that of reasonableness, may be placed upon the recognition of expenses attributable to the earning of income. Accordingly, a fixed work-expense allowance which does not permit deductions for expenses in excess of that standard, is directly contrary to the language of the statute.
Petitioners, relying upon the “take into consideration” phrase of § 402 (a)(7), argue that the requirement of “consideration” is satisfied by the use of a- statistical average of the actual expenses of all AFDC participants in the State. But this argument ignores the fact that the phrase “take into consideration” modifies “income and resources ... as well as any expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of any such income” (emphasis added). Thus, it seems inescapable that whatever treatment is accorded income must also be extended to expenses attributable to the earning of income. And, it has consistently been the practice to compute the income of an AFDC applicant on an individual basis.
From the inception of the Act, Congress has sought to ensure that. AFDC assistance is provided only to needy families, and that the' amount, of assistance actually paid is based on the amount needed in the individual case after other income and resources are considered. Congress has been careful to ensure that all of the income and resources properly attributable to a particular, applicant be taken into account, and this individualized approach has been reflected in the implementing regulations. For example, HEW’s broad definition of “earned income” as “income in cash or in kind earned by a needy individual through the receipt of wages, salary, commissions, or profit from activities in which he is enagaged as a self-employed individual or as an employee,” 45 CFR § 233.20 (a)(6) (iii), and its more specific descriptions of commissioned, salaried, and self-employment derived income in 45 CFR §§ 233.20 (a)(6) (iv-viii), demonstrate its view that the determination of need in each case is to be based upon an assessment of the particular individual’s available income and resources. Moreover, individualized consideration of available income and resources is clearly contemplated by HEW regulations providing for the exclusion of such items as scholarship funds and loans, see 45 CFR §§ 233.20 (a) (3) (ii-vii), and requiring that certain items such as food stamps be. deducted, 45 CFR § 233.20 (a)(4). Thus, if income and expenses related to the production of income are to be treated alike, as the terms of § 402 (a) (7) appear to require, both must be considered on an individualized basis.
The literal import of § 402 (a) (7) is confirmed by the statute's legislative history. The congressional purpose in requiring the States to take into- consideration employment expenses was clearly set forth in S. Rep. No. 1589, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 17-18 (1962), which explained:
“Under present law . . . States are permitted, but not required, to take into consideration the expenses an individual has in earning any income (this practice is not uniform in the country and in a substantial number of States full consideration of such expenses is not given). The committee believes that it is only reasonable for the States to take these expenses fully into Account. Under existing law if these work expenses are not considered in determining need, they have the effect of providing a disincentive to working since that portion of the family budget spent for work expenses has the effect of reducing the amount available for food, clothing, and shelter. The bill has, therefore, added a provision in all assistance titles requiring the States to give consideration to any expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of income.” (Emphasis added.)
Virtually identical language appears in the House Report. See H. R. Rep. No. 1414, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 23 (1962).
Congress thus sought to encourage AFDC recipients to secure and retain employment by requiring the States to take into account fuily any expenses attributable to .the earning of income in determining eligibility for assistance. Such expenses reduce the level of actually available income, and if not deducted from gross income will not produce a corresponding increase in AFDC assistance. Failing to allow the deduction of reasonable expenses might well discourage the applicant from seeking or retaining employment whereby such expenses are incurred. Section 402 (a) (7) was aimed at removing this disincentive.. As then-Secretary- of HEW Ribicoff explained the legislation .in testimony before the Senate:
“[W]e are trying to do . . . everything we can to encourage péople to get a job and work and we feel it is important to encourage the States. By having this provision, the' State will take into account these expenses so people will get jobs. I believe that the State should give them an' allowance for those items that are necessary- for them to get the job.” Hearings on the Public Assistance Act of 1962 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 152 (1962).
Standardised treatment of employment-related expenses without provision for demonstrating actual and reasonable expenses in excess of that standard amount, such as Colorado has adopted, threatens to defeat the goal Congress sought to achieve in adopting the mandatory work-expense recognition provisions of § 402 (a)(7). By limiting employment expenses to $30 per month, the Colorado regulation results in a disincentive to seek or retain' employment for all recipients whose reasonable work-related expenses exceed or- would exceed that amount. Accordingly, the Colorado regulation conflicts with federal law-and is therefore invalid.
It is, of course, not the adoption of a standardized work-expense allowance per se which we hold to be violative of § 402 (a)(7) of the Act, but the fact that the standard used by Colorado is in effect a maximum or absolute. limitation upon the recognition of such expenses. As the Court of Appeals correctly observed, a standard allowance would be permissible, and would substantially serve petitioners’ interests in administrative efficiency, if it provided for individualized consideration of expenses in excess off the standard amount-. See 475 F. 2d. at 735. See also Anderson v. Graham, 492 F. 2d 986 (CA8 1973); Adams v. Parham, Civ. No. 16041 (ND Ga. Apr. 14, 1972) (unpublished); and Campagnuolo v. White, Civ. No. 13968 (Conn. June 22, 1972) (unpublished). Such a standard allowance would comport fully with the statutory requirement 'that any reasonable Work expenses be considered, and would allow individualized treatment where necessary.
As the Court has previously observed, the AFDC program is an area in which Congress at times “has voiced its wishes in muted strains and left it to the courts to discern, the theme in the cacophony of political understanding.” Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S., a. 412. But as to reasonable-expenses a-ttributable to the earning of .income, Congress has spoken with firmness and. clarity.
The judgment is affirmed.
It is só ordered.
Section 4313.13, vol. 4, Colorado Division of Public Welfare Staff Manual^effective March 1970), provided.in part:
.“Employment expenses which are deducted from the gross amount received by an employed , recipient include, but are not restricted to: “Transportation expenses:
“Public transportation to and from work is allowed at actual cost. When the recipient must use his own car as transportation to and from work,' 5‡ a mile is allowed, plus parking fees if required. Purchase, repair, or upkeep of a vehicle,' providing it is essential to re-, tain' employment and the plan therefore is approved by the county department."
Section 4313.13, vol. 4, Colorado Division of Public Welfare Staff Manual (effective July 1970). The $30 standardized figure is an average based upon a statewide statistical survey of work expenses incurred by persons in the AFDC program.in Colorado. It was calculated by examining the work expenses of every AFDC recipient in. Colorado for the last month of each quarter of the year from March 1969 to March 1970. -The expenses included transportation, union dues, uniforms and tools, telephone, and general items, but excluded the cost of child care. The statewide average varied from a low of $30.55 in June 1969 to a high of $36.93 in March 1970.
According to HEW, 20 States', including Colorado, presently employ a standard work-expense allowance in combination with actual child care expenses, and .in some cases mandatory payroll deductions, and an additional 15 States use other systems of mandatory standard allowances for .one or more major items of work expense. Brief' for United States as Amicus Curiae 5. These standard allowances have often been the subject of litigation. A number have been held invalid. See Anderson v. Graham, 492 F. 2d 986 (CA8 1973) (Nebraska $25 standard work-expense allowance); Connecticut State Dept. of Pub. Welfare v. HEW, 448 F. 2d 209 (CA2 1971) (Connecticut regulation limiting the types of deductible work-related expenses); Adams v. Parham, Civil Action No. 16041 . (ND Ga. Apr. 14, 1972) (unpublished) (Georgia $35 standard work-expense allowance); Campagnuolo v. White, Civil Action No. 13968 (Conn. June 22, 1972) (unpublished) (Connecticut $60 standard allowance for full-time employment expenses and $40 standard allowance for part-time employment expenses); Williford v. Laupheimer, 311 F. Supp. 720 (ED Pa. 1969) (Pennsylvania $50 maximum allowance for work expenses); County of Alameda v. Carleson, 5 Cal. 3d 730, 488 P. 2d 953 (1971), appeal dismissed, 406 U. S. 913 (1972) (California work-expense regulation providing for standard deductions ranging from $6 to $25 per month). In X v. McCorkle, 333 F. Supp. 1109 (N. J. 1970), modified on other grounds, sub nom. Engelman v. Amos, 404 U. S. 23 (1971), the court approved in dicta New Jersey’s $50 standard work-expense allowance. In Conover v. Hall, 104 Cal. Rptr. 77 (1972), decision vacated pending appeal in California Supreme Court, the court upheld California’s $50 standard allowance.
Colorado did not make it a statewide practice to allow AFDC recipients to deduct installment payments on the purchase of a car. Consistent with the reasonableness requirement of 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a)(7), such determinations were, quite correctly, made on a case-by-case basis. As counsel for the State commented at oral argument: “This was an individual decision in an individual case in El Paso County, Colorado. The same facts could have been presented to an eligibility technician in another part of Colorado, who would have made a decision . . . that the car was a personal expense, that, a job was available closer to the home of the recipient or that she could use public transportation.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 33-34.
Respondent correctly concedes the State’s responsibility for inquiring into whether claimed deductions are excessive or are truly attributable to the earning of income. Brief for Respondent 4. No doubt a State should scrutinize with particular care claimed expenses for automobiles or other items that in large measure are capital expenditures which will also be used for personal purposes unrelated to employment. Recognizing that States in administering AFDC programs must determine the reasonableness of work-related expenses does not, however, resolve the issue before us — whether States may ban. all such expenses, no matter how reasonable and necessary, above a fixed cutoff figure.
Another effect of the change in the State’s AFDC regulation was to terminate respondent’s eligibility for participation in Colorado’s medical assistance program under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (a) (10).
While the case was pending in the District Court, respondent terminated her employment and again received an AEDC grant. Prior to the summary judgment hearing, she returned to work, again incurring work-related expenses substantially in excess of the $30 allowance. Although respondent continued to receive a grant despite her renewed employment, the amount was significantly lower than it would have been if she had been permitted to deduct work expenses in full.
The AFDC program was originally known as “Aid to Dependent Children.” 49 Stat. 627. In 1962, the name of the program was changed to “Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children,” and the name of the assistance provided under the program changed to “Aid to Families with Dependent Children.” Pub. L. 87-543, 76 Stat. 185, §§ 104 (a) (1) and 104 (a) (2).
Section 3140 of the HEW Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, Part IV (1957), thus provided in part:
“A State public assistance agency may establish a reasonable minimum money amount to represent the combined additional cost of three items — food, clothing, and personal incidentals — for all employed persons. The State plan may provide that other items of work expense will be allowed, when there is a determination that such expenses do, in fact, exist in the individual case.”
See also Social Security Board, Bureau of Public Assistance, State Letter No. 4 (Apr. 30, 1942); HEW, State Letter No. 291 (Mar. 11, 1957) (indicating agency approval of such deductions).
See generally 42 U. S. C. § 601; H. R. Doc. No. 81, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935); H. R. Rep. No. 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935); S. Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935); E. Witte, The Development of the Social Security Act 163-164 (1962).
Title 45 CFR § 233.20 (a) (6) provides in part:
“(iv) With reference to commissions, wages, or salary, the term ‘earned income’ means the total amount, irrespective of personal expenses, such as income-tax deductions, lunches, and transportation to and from work, and irrespective of expenses of employment which are not personal, such as the cost of tools, materials, special uniforms, or transportation to call on customers.
“(v) With respect to self-employment,. the term ‘earned income’ means the total profit from business enterprise, farming, etc., resulting from a comparison of the gross income received with the ‘business expenses,’ i. e., total cost of the production of the income. Personal expenses, such as income-tax payments, lunches, and transportation to and from work, are not classified as business expenses.
“(vi) The definition shall exclude the following from ‘earned income’: Returns from capital investment with respect to which the individual is not himself actively engaged, as in a business (for example, under most circumstances, dividends and interest would be excluded from ‘earned income’); benefits (not in the nature of wages, salary, or profit) accruing as compensation, or reward for service, or as compensation for lack of employment ....
“(vii) With regard to the degree of activity, earned income is income produced as a result- of the .performance of services by a recipient; in other words, income which the individual earns by his own efforts, including managerial responsibilities, would be properly classified as earned income, such as management of capital investment in real estate. Conversely, for example, in the instance of capital investment wherein the individual carries no specific responsibility, such as where rental properties are in the hands of rental agencies and the check is forwarded to the recipient, the income would not be classified as earned income.
" (viii) Reserves accumulated from earnings- are given no different treatment than reserves accumulated from any other sources.”
Petitioners claim that HEW has permitted the use of standard work-expense allowances in recognition of the practical necessities of administration and that the Department’s construction of its own regulations is entitled to great weight. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1 (1965). But the sound principle of according deference to administrative practice normally applies only where the relevant statutory language is unclear or susceptible of differing interpretations. See, e. g., Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282, 286 (1971). Jn view of the literal requirements of §402 (a)(7), which accord- with'the federal policy underlying its enactment, we need not look to agency practice in this case. Moreover, HEW itself has not adhered to a uniform practice. Although in recent years HEW has construed § 402 (a) (7)’ • to permit standardization of some items, in 1964 it required that “[i] terns of work expenses must be allowed when there is a determination that such expenses do, in fact, exist in the individual case.” HEW, Handbook of Public Assistance Adm nistration, Part IV, § 1340 (1964).
Our interpretation of §402 (a)(7) is also supported by the disinclination of the Congress to amend the section to permit the use of various standardized allowances. See H. R. 16311, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., § 101 (1970); H. R. 1, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., § 401 (1971). In explaining the latter bill, which would have replaced the present work-expense provision with an increase ill the earned income disregard of § 402 (a) (8) (A) (ii), the Committee on Ways and -Means observed that it “would eliminate the open-ended work expense exclusion . . . .” H. R. Rep. No. 92-231, p. 177 (1971), See also S. 2311, and H. R. 3153, 93d Cong, 1st Sess. (1973).
The Court’s observation in Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 419 (1970), that “[w]e do not, of course, hold that New York may not, consistently with the federal statutes, consolidate items on the basis of statistical averages,” was in no sense intended as a blanket approval of the principle of averaging under AEDC programs without regard to what is being averaged. In that ease, the Court found a New York statute fixing maximum AFDC allowances per family and eliminating a “special grants” program, to .be in contravention of § 402 (a) (23) of the Act. In holding that New York could not completely eliminate such items from the standard of need, the Court noted that the State could, consistently with the statute, include them through ’the use of statistical averages-.' A statewide standard of need is, however, but an estimate- by state welfare officials of the minimum financial‘requirements of-a hypothetical family, and by its very nature is susceptible'of computation through the usé of statistical averages. Moreover, the discretion granted the States by Congress in determining heed, see King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, 318 n. 14. (1968), contrasts sharply with the statutory requirement of § 402 (a) (7) that any expenses reasonably attributable to the earnings of income be considered. In the face of that statutory command -and the clear statement of congressional purpose, we must álso-' reject petitioners’ claims of administrative efficiency or convenience. See Rosado v. Wyman, supra, at 417.
We also note that' Colorado’s use of a standard work-expense allowance is not justified by, its undisputed power to set the level of benefits under the AFDC program-. See Rosado v. Wyman, supra; Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535 (1972). Although Colorado may adjust the percentage of need which it has agreed to pay all recipients through its power to determine AFDC funding, see King v. Smith, supra, it may not do so in .a manner .that violates a specific requirement of the Act. See Connecticut State Dept. of Pub. Welfare v. HEW, 448 F. 2d 209 (CA2 1971).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 194, 195, 196 and 197, and the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as the petitions for certiorari in No. 79, Misc., No. 80, Misc., No. 115, Misc., No. 149, Misc., and No. 224, Misc., are granted.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated and the cases are remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of Campbell v. United States, 373 U. S. 487, and for such further consideration as may be appropriate.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner seeks review of a conviction under charges that he violated 18 U. S. C. § 281, a section which punishes employees of the United States who receive outside compensation for any services to be rendered in any matter before a federal department or agency in which the United States is a party. Petitioner was not himself an employee but was charged with inducing a federal employee to accept compensation for such services through conspiring with him for that purpose. Such inducement violates 18 U. S. C. §§ 2 and 281. The sections are set out in the margin.
Count 1 of the indictment charged, in substance, that on or about October 1, 1950, Hollifield, an employee of the United States, agreed to receive $1,750 from the petitioner for services to be rendered by Hollifield in regard to purchase requests in which the United States had a direct interest. The services consisted of Hollifield’s recommending approval and procurement by the Department of the Air Force of certain types of sun goggles and ski goggles which were to be used in Air Force survival kits. Count 4 charged receipt by Hollifield of $200 on or about August 5, 1951. Each of these two counts charged that petitioner aided, abetted, induced and procured Hollifield to unlawfully receive the compensation.
The fifth count charged a conspiracy between Hollifield and the petitioner from October 1, 1950, until September 26, 1951, to perform the unlawful acts alleged. Convictions on other counts were reversed.
Hollifield and the petitioner were tried jointly after the petitioner's motion for severance was denied. The jury found petitioner guilty on all counts and sentence was duly imposed. On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction as to the above counts now before us. 211 F. 2d 719.
Certiorari was granted, 347 U. S. 1010, because of asserted variance or conflict between the legal conclusion reached in this case — that an extrajudicial, exculpatory statement of an accused, subsequent to the alleged crime, needs no corroboration — and other cases to the contrary. This Court, in granting certiorari, limited review to the three issues raised by the petitioner which were considered important to the administration of criminal law and upon which there appeared to be some divergence of opinion among the Courts of Appeals.
Hollifield was employed by the United States Air Force at the Aero Medical Laboratory at Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. His job entailed, among other things, preparing the specifications of survival kits and determining whether goods submitted for those kits, including goggles, complied with the specifications. Petitioner resided in Chicago and was a subcontractor on various projects for equipping these kits. The petitioner supplied certain goggles to a prime contractor who submitted them for approval for use in the kits. The goggles were rejected on January 23, 1951, because of “marked deviations” from applicable specifications. A short time thereafter Hollifield arranged a conference with the project engineer who had made the rejection. At the conference Hollifield, accompanied by the petitioner, strongly urged acceptance of petitioner’s goggles. It was concluded that Hollifield should prepare a written memorandum of his reasons for acceptance. A written memorandum dated January 25, 1951, was prepared. Thereafter reconsideration was granted and on February 3, 1951, use of petitioner’s goggles was recommended.
The Government further established by various records that on April 13,1951, a long-distance call was made from Hollifield’s residence in Dayton to petitioner in Chicago; that petitioner on April 16, 1951, cashed a check for $1,000, which check was dated April 13, 1951; and that a round-trip airline ticket was issued in Hollifield’s name for April 14, 1951, flights from Dayton to Chicago and return.
The evidence of the Government thus far summarized was established by independent proof. The remainder of the Government’s case depended upon a written statement submitted by the petitioner to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and various oral statements made by the petitioner to the FBI in several interviews.
The substance of these statements was that the petitioner had first met Hollifield in October 1950, and had seen him some fifteen times thereafter at Wright Field and in Chicago and that he had discussed the rejection of the goggles with Hollifield. He further stated that Hollifield, pursuant to an earlier phone call, came to his office in Chicago on Saturday, April 14, 1951, and he had handed Hollifield $1,000 which he had taken from cash he had at home and which cash he had replenished on Monday, April 16, 1951, by cashing a check dated April 13,1951, in that amount. Petitioner also admitted giving Hollifield another $200 some two weeks later.
In both his oral and written statements petitioner insisted that he had never requested anything of Hollifield in regard to the goggles; that the money was strictly a loan to Hollifield based upon Hollifield’s request to him that he needed money in regard to a mortgage on his home; that no security was given for the loan; that he had no receipt or agreement for interest; that he had no personal knowledge as to whether Hollifield owned a home or not; and that none of the money had been repaid. Petitioner consistently and specifically denied any guilt of the offense charged.
The petitioner makes no claim that any of the extrajudicial statements were anything but voluntary. In fact the record discloses that petitioner was cooperative with the FBI in furnishing information and that petitioner had ample opportunity to consult counsel in reference to the FBI interviews and statements he made. Petitioner’s prime contention is that his statements made after the date of the offense charged are so analogous to a confession that the same rules applicable to confessions must be applied and that if such rules are applied the conviction cannot stand.
First. It is petitioner’s contention that where extrajudicial admissions that point to guilt are made by the accused, after the date of the acts charged as crime, testimony by witnesses other than the accused as to such oral or written admissions cannot be accepted as evidence without corroboration of the facts stated. That conclusion derives from petitioner’s position that admissions of essential facts to prove a crime or admissions of some of its elements are so analogous to confessions of guilt that the same rule as to corroboration should be applied.
In the United States our concept of justice that finds no man guilty until proven has led our state and federal courts generally to refuse conviction on testimony concerning confessions of the accused not made by him at the trial of his case. Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 2071. See Warszower v. United States, 312 U. S. 342, 345, note 2. We have gone further in that direction than has the common law of England. There the courts have been hesitant to lay down a rule that an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession may not send an accused to prison or to death. In our country the doubt persists that the zeal of the agencies of prosecution to protect the peace, the self-interest of the accomplice, the maliciousness of an enemy or the aberration or weakness of the accused under the strain of suspicion may tinge or warp the facts of the confession. Admissions, retold at a trial, are much like hearsay, that is, statements not made at the pending trial. They had neither the compulsion of the oath nor the test of cross-examination. They are competent as an admission against interest.
The admissions detailed above establish an acquaintance between petitioner and the employee, and a motive but not a purpose to have the federal employee agree to receive prohibited compensation for the services. More importantly they establish the receipt of money by the employee around the time of the alleged inducement by conspiracy to secure the employee’s services before a federal agency concerning a contract in which the United States was interested. While the oral and verbal statements were not confessions of guilt, they were admissions of fact essential to prove the charge against petitioner and indeed of an element of the crime, inducement to receive the prohibited compensation or an illegal acceptance of a promise to pay.
In Warszower v. United States, 312 U. S. 342, 348, we held that although the only proof of an essential element of making a false statement was admissions to the contrary prior to the crime charged, sufficient to convict if found true, such an admission would take the case to the jury. We said such admissions “contain none of the inherent weaknesses of confessions or admissions after the fact.” We think that an accused’s admissions of essential facts or elements of the crime, subsequent to the crime, are of the same character as confessions and that corroboration should be required. See I Greenleaf, Evidence (16th ed.), § 216; Smith v. United States, post, p. 147, decided today.
The need for corroboration extends beyond complete and conscious admission of guilt — a strict confession. Facts admitted that are immaterial as to guilt or innocence need no discussion. But statements of the accused out of court that show essential elements of the crime, here payment of money, necessary to supplement an otherwise inadequate basis for a verdict of conviction, stand differently. Such admissions have the same possibilities for error as confessions. They, too, must be corroborated. See Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 621.
It is urged by the Government, however, that such requirement should not apply to exculpatory statements, that is, those that explain actions rather than admit guilt. It is thought that exculpatory statements do not have behind them the pressure of coercion or the inducement of escaping the consequences of crime. This accords with Professor Wigmore’s view. See note 7, supra. The statements here are exculpatory. See summary, supra. There is no opinion of this Court declaring or declining such an exception. We conclude that exculpatory statements, however, may not differ from other admissions of incriminating facts. Given when the accused is under suspicion, they become questionable just as testimony by witnesses to other extrajudicial statements of the accused. They call for corroboration to the same extent as other statements.
Second. We next consider the extent of the corroboration of admissions necessary as a matter of law for a judgment of conviction. On this point the cases in the federal courts show divergence. One line of cases follows the rule set out in Daeche v. United States, 250 F. 566, that the corroborative evidence is sufficient if it touches the corpus delicti “in the sense of the injury against whose occurrence the law is directed,” 250 F., at 571, and is of a type which goes to fortify the truthfulness of the confession. Some cases would seem only to require the latter half of the Daeche rule; that is, proof of any corroborating circumstances is adequate which goes to fortify the truth of the confession or tends to prove facts embraced in the confession. There is no necessity that such proof touch the corpus delicti at all, though, of course, the facts of the admission plus the corroborating evidence must establish all elements of the crime.
Other decisions tend to follow the rule enunciated in Forte v. United States, 68 App. D. C. 111, 115, 119, 94 F. 2d 236, 240, 244, that the corroboration must consist of substantial evidence, independent of the accused’s extrajudicial statements, which tends to establish the whole of the corpus delicti,
Whether the differences in quantum and type of independent proof are in principle or of expression is difficult to determine. Each case has its own facts admitted and its own corroborative evidence, which leads to patent individualization of the opinions. However, we think the better rule to be that the corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti. It is necessary, therefore, to require the Government to introduce substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the statement. Thus, the independent evidence serves a dual function. It tends to make the admission reliable, thus corroborating it while also establishing independently the other necessary elements of the offense. Smith v. United States, post, p. 147. It is sufficient if the corroboration supports the essential facts admitted sufficiently to justify a jury inference of their truth. Those facts plus the other evidence besides the admission must, of course, be sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Turning to the instant case, it is clear that there was substantial independent evidence to establish directly the truthfulness- of petitioner’s admission that he paid the government employee money. But this direct corroborative evidence tending to prove the truthfulness of petitioner’s statements would not establish a corpus delicti of the offense charged. Rather it tends to establish only one element of the offense — payment of money. The Government therefore had to prove the other element of the corpus delicti — rendering of services by the government employee — entirely by independent evidence. This independent evidence of services and of facts within the admissions seems adequate to constitute corroboration of petitioner’s extrajudicial admissions and also establish the corpus delicti. The jury was free therefore to consider the admissions in connection with all the other evidence in the case and to decide whether the guilt of the petitioner had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. They found that it was and we feel that such finding is supported by substantial evidence.
Third. Petitioner’s final complaint arises out of the fact that the conspirators were tried jointly. The petitioner feels that the jury might have become confused and improperly considered statements of codefendant Hollifield in reaching its verdict as to petitioner. Other than this general possibility of confusion, he points out nothing specifically prejudicial resulting from the joint trial. The fact that the Court of Appeals below reversed on two counts because of lack of evidence independent of statements of Hollifield is emphasized to bolster this claim of error as to the remaining counts.
It was within the sound discretion of the trial judge as to whether the defendants should be tried together or severally and there is nothing in the record to indicate an abuse of such discretion when petitioner’s motion for severance was overruled. The trial judge here made clear and repeated admonitions to the jury at appropriate times that Hollifield’s incriminatory statements were not to be considered in establishing the guilt of the petitioner. To say that the jury might have been confused amounts to nothing more than an unfounded speculation that the jurors disregarded clear instructions of the court in arriving at their verdict. Our theory of trial relies upon the ability of a jury to follow instructions. There is nothing in this record to call for reversal because of any confusion or injustice arising from the joint trial. The record contains substantial competent evidence upon which the jury could find petitioner guilty. The judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Douglas, believing that Forte v. United States, 68 App. D. C. 111, 94 F. 2d 236, states the better rule on corroboration, would reverse the judgment below.
U. S. C. § 281:
“Whoever, being . . . [an] officer or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, directly or indirectly receives or agrees to receive, any compensation for any services rendered or to be rendered, either by himself or another, in relation to any proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other matter in which the United States is a party or directly or indirectly interested, before any department, agency, court martial, officer, or any civil, military, or naval commission, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
Id. § 2:
“(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”
Warszower v. United States, 312 U. S. 342; Calderon v. United States, 207 F. 2d 377; Pines v. United States, 123 F. 2d 825; Gulotta v. United States, 113 F. 2d 683.
The three questions as set out by the petitioner upon which cer-tiorari was granted are: “3. Whether, where an admission is made to law enforcement officers after the date of the acts charged as crimes, it is to be so far treated as a confession that, in the. absence of corroboration, it is inadmissible.
“4. Whether a conviction can be sustained where there is, apart from an admission made to law enforcement officers after the date of the acts charged as crimes, no proof of the corpus delicti.
“5. Whether, in convicting petitioner the jury, and in sustaining his conviction the court below, in fact admitted, as against him, statements of his co-defendant which, as a matter of law, were not competent evidence against him.” 347 U. S. 1010.
The memorandum, although signed by another, bore Hollifield’s initials and embodied the reasons he had orally urged at the conference.
In some cases a person may be convicted on his own confession without any corroborating evidence. 9 Halsbury’s Laws of England (2d ed.) § 291, p. 207; § 268, p. 183, note g; I Phillipps and Arnold, Evidence (5th Am. ed.), p. 441. In manslaughter this conclusion is cautiously applied. Regina v. Burton, Dearsly’s Crown Cases (1852 — 1856) 282. Proof of the corpus delicti is required. Halsbury, supra, § 768; R. v. Davidson, 25 Cr. App. R. 21.
See American Law Institute Model Code of Evidence, adopted May 15, 1942, Foreword, Professor Edmund M. Morgan, 36, Rule 501; Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 1048.
“A confession is an acknowledgment in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the guilty fact charged or of some essential part of it.” Professor Wigmore excludes from the rule of corroboration exculpatory statements: “Exculpatory statements, denying guilt, cannot be confessions. This ought to be plain enough, if legal terms are to have any meaning and if the spirit of the general principle is to be obeyed.” Also, “acknowledgments of subordinate facts colorless with reference to actual guilt.”
“An acknowledgment of a subordinate fact, not directly involving guilt, or, in other words, not essential to the crime charged, is not a confession; because the supposed ground of untrustworthiness of confessions ... is that a strong motive impels the accused to expose and declare his guilt as the price of purchasing immunity from present pain or subsequent punishment; and thus, by hypothesis, there must be some quality of guilt in the fact acknowledged. Confessions are thus only one species of admissions; and all other admissions than those which directly touch the fact of guilt are without the scope of the peculiar rules affecting the use of confessions.” Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 821.
Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, an important case in the field of admissions, excludes such a statement on the ground of coercion, not exculpation. P. 562.
E. g., Jordan v. United States, 60 F. 2d 4; United States v. Kertess, 139 F. 2d 923; Forlini v. United States, 12 F. 2d 631, 634.
Accord, United States v. Williams, 1 Cliff. 5, 28 Fed. Cas., No. 16,707, pp. 636, 644; Pearlman v. United States, 10 F. 2d 460; Wynkoop v. United States, 22 F. 2d 799; Bolland v. United States, 238 F. 529, 530.
Ercoli v. United States, 76 U. S. App. D. C. 360, 361, 362, 363, 131 F. 2d 354, 355, 356, 357, following and reaffirming Forte, states the rule to be that corroboration which merely tends to support the confession is insufficient, as it must also embrace substantial evidence touching and tending to prove each of the main elements or constituent parts of the corpus delicti. Also following this rule, e. g., Pines v. United States, 123 F. 2d 825; Ryan v. United States, 99 F. 2d 864; United States v. Fenwick, 177 F. 2d 488.
(1) The long-distance call from Hollifield's home to petitioner's home on April 13, 1951. (2) Petitioner’s $1,000 check dated April 13, 1951. (3) The airline tickets in Hollifield’s name for a flight to Chicago on April 14,1951.
This was accomplished by introduction of substantially uncon-troverted evidence of Hollifield’s efforts in gaining acceptance by the Government of petitioner’s previously rejected goggles.
Rule 14, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 672; Waldeck v. United States, 2 F. 2d 243; Olmstead v. United States, 19 F. 2d 842; Metcalf v. United States, 195 F. 2d 213, 217.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Claiming he was the original and sole inventor of a mechanical device, the respondent Kepner asked the United States Patent Office for a patent. Later the petitioner Sanford filed a similar application making the same claim. As authorized by R. S. § 4904, 35 U. S. C. § 52, the Commissioner of Patents directed a board of interference examiners to hold hearings and determine the dispute over priority of invention — which of the two first used the device. The Board decided for respondent Kep-ner. Sanford’s application for patent was accordingly refused. As authorized by R. S. § 4915, 35 U. S. C. § 63, Sanford brought this bill in equity praying that he be adjudged inventor of the device and entitled to a patent. Sanford also prayed that Kepner’s claims be adjudged unpatentable, charging that many previous patents had been granted on Kepner’s device, some of which had expired. Agreeing with the Board of Interference Examiners, the District Court found against Sanford on the issue of prior use. Since this was enough to justify refusal to issue Sanford a patent, the District Court declined to go further and consider Kepner’s claim to a patent. Accordingly Sanford’s bill was dismissed. 99 F. Supp. 221. Agreeing with the District Court, the Court of Appeals affirmed. 195 F. 2d 387. The circuits have different views concerning the duty of district courts to consider and adjudicate questions of invention and patentability when parties urge them in R. S. § 4915 proceedings. To settle these differences we granted certiorari. 343 U. S. 976.
So far as relevant to the precise question here, R. S. § 4915, as now contained in 35 U. S. C. § 63, reads:
“. . . whenever any applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the board of interference examiners, the applicant . . . may have remedy by bill in equity . . . and the court . . . may adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention .... And such adjudication, if it be in favor of the right of the applicant, shall authorize the commissioner to issue such patent on the applicant filing in the Patent Office a copy of the adjudication and otherwise complying with the requirements of law.”
The obvious purpose of the quoted part of R. S. § 4915 is to give a judicial remedy to an applicant who has been finally denied a patent because of a Patent Office decision against him and in favor of his adversary on the question of priority. When the trial court decides this factual issue of priority against him and thus affirms the refusal of the patent by the Patent Office, he has obtained the full remedy the statute gives him. Only if he wins on priority may he proceed. In that event, the statute says, the court may proceed to “adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention . . . .” So adjudging, it may authorize issuance of the patent. But judicial authorization of issuance implies judicial sanction of patentability and for this reason this Court has said, “It necessarily follows that no adjudication can be made in favor of the applicant, unless the alleged invention for which a patent is sought is a patentable invention.” Hill v. Wooster, 132 U. S. 693, 698. The principle of the Hill case is that the court must decide whether claims show patentable inventions before authorizing the Commissioner to issue a patent. No part of its holding or wording nor of that in Hoover Co. v. Coe, 325 U. S. 79, requires us to say R. S. § 4915 compels a district court to adjudicate patentability at the instance of one whose claim is found to be groundless. Sanford’s claim was found to be groundless.
It is unlikely that this equity proceeding would develop a full investigation of validity. There would be no attack on the patent comparable to that of an infringement action. Here the very person who claimed an invention now asks to prove that Kepner’s similar device was no invention at all because of patents issued long before either party made claim for his discovery. There is no real issue of invention between the parties here and we see no reason to read into the statute a district court’s compulsory duty to adjudicate validity.
Affirmed.
In accord with the Court of Appeals, Heston v. Kuhlke, 179 F. 2d 222; Smith v. Carter Carburetor Corp., 130 F. 2d 555; Cleveland Trust Co. v. Berry, 99 F. 2d 517. Contra: Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Co. v. Milwaukee Gas Specialty Co., 174 F. 2d 203; Knutson v. Gallsworthy, 82 U. S. App. D. C. 304, 164 F. 2d 497.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Radio Corporation of America (RCA) and two of its subsidiaries brought this action in a three-judge District Court to enjoin and set aside an order of the Federal Communications Commission prescribing standards for transmission of color television. The effect of the challenged order was to reject a color system proposed by RCA and to accept one proposed by the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS). The basis of RCA’s complaint was that the order had been entered arbitrarily and capriciously, without the support of substantial evidence, against the public interest, and contrary to law. After hearing and oral argument, the District Court entered summary judgment sustaining the Commission, one judge dissenting. RCA and the other plaintiffs took this direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 and § 2101 (b).
At the outset we are faced with RCA’s contention that the District Court failed to review the record as a whole in determining whether the Commission’s order was supported by substantial evidence; it is urged that for this reason we should summarily reverse and remand the case for further consideration by that court. If RCA’s premise were correct, the course which it suggests might be wholly appropriate. For as pointed out recently, in considering the question of sufficiency of evidence to support an administrative order this Court must and does rely largely on a first reviewing court’s conclusion. Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474. The present case, however, need not be returned for further scrutiny below because we are convinced that the review already afforded did not fall short of that which is required. The District Court heard oral argument for three days and deliberated for about five weeks before handing down its decision. Both the majority and dissenting opinions show a familiarity with RCA’s basic contention (and the minor ones as well) that could have come only from careful study of the record as a whole. To be sure, there was a casual statement in the majority opinion susceptible of the interpretation that the court in reaching the decision made an examination of the record less complete than it should have been. Fairly construed, however, the remark, while perhaps unfortunate, is entirely consistent with that conscientious review which we are satisfied was given this record by the District Court. We therefore pass to the question of validity of the Commission’s order.
All parties agree, as they must, that given a justifiable fact situation, the Commission has power under 47 U. S. C. § 303 (c), (e), (f), (g) to do precisely what it did in this case, namely, to promulgate standards for transmission of color television that result in rejecting all but one of the several proposed systems. Moreover, it cannot be contended seriously that the Commission in taking such a course was without evidential support for its refusal to adopt the RCA system at this time. The real argument, advanced at great length and in many different forms, boils down to this: Viewing the record as a whole, the Commission as a matter of law erred in concluding that the CBS color system had reached a state of development which justified its acceptance to the exclusion of RCA’s and that of others. Consequently, before the Commission, the District Court and here, RCA’s main attempt has been to persuade that no system has yet been proven worthy of acceptance for public use, that commercial color broadcasting must be postponed awaiting inventions that will achieve more nearly perfect results.
We sustain the Commission’s power to reject this position and hold valid the challenged order, buttressed as it is by the District Court’s approval. To explain our conclusion it is unnecessary to repeat the detailed statement of facts made in the majority and minority opinions of the Commission and District Court. Nor, for present purposes, is it necessary to attempt a translation of the technical terms invented to carry meanings in the rapidly growing television industry. It will suffice to give the following brief summary of the background of the Commission’s findings and what was found:
Standards for black and white television transmission were first promulgated by the Commission in 1941. RCA’s complaint alleges, and all apparently agree, that “The quality of the present [black and white] service, the improvements and reductions in price to the public that have been made, the incredible expansion of the industry as a whole, are all due to the fact that manufacturers could build upon a single set of long-range high-quality standards.” From 1941 until now the Commission has been engaged in consideration of plans and proposals looking toward promulgation of a single set of color standards. CBS apparently made quicker progress in developing an acceptable system than did others. It was soon attacked, however, on the ground that it was utilizing old knowledge highly useful in the realm of the physical sciences and mechanical practices but incongruous in the new fields of electronics occupied by television. This is still the core of the objection to the CBS system, together with the objection that existing receiving sets are not constructed in such a way that they can, without considerable adjustments, receive CBS color broadcasts either in color or black and white. The fact that adjustments are required before a CBS color broadcast can be received in black and white on existing sets makes this system “incompatible” with the millions of television receivers now in the hands of the public.
There is no doubt that a “compatible” color television system would be desirable. Recognition of this fact seems to be the controlling reason why the Commission did not long ago approve the “incompatible” CBS system. In the past, it has postponed adoption of standards with the hope that a satisfactory “compatible” color television system would be developed. But this time, in light of previous experience, the Commission thought that further delay in making color available was too high a price to pay for possible “compatibility” in the future, despite RCA’s claim that it was on the verge of discovering an acceptable “compatible” system.
The Commission’s special familiarity with the problems involved in adopting standards for color television is amply attested by the record. It has determined after hearing evidence on all sides that the CBS system will provide the public with color of good quality and that television viewers should be given an opportunity to receive it if they so desire. This determination certainly cannot be held capricious. It is true that the choice between adopting standards now or at a later date was not free from difficulties. Moreover, the wisdom of the decision made can be contested as is shown in the dissenting opinions of two Commissioners. But courts should not overrule an administrative decision merely because they disagree with its wisdom. We cannot say the District Court misapprehended or misapplied the proper judicial standard in holding that the Commission’s order was not arbitrary or against the public interest as a matter of law.
Whether the Commission should have reopened its proceedings to permit RCA to offer proof of new discoveries for its system was a question within the discretion of the Commission which we find was not abused. We have considered other minor contentions made by RCA but are satisfied with the way the District Court disposed of them.
The District Court’s judgment sustaining the order of the Commission is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
dubitante.
Since I am not alone in entertaining doubts about this case they had better be stated. The ultimate issue is the function of this Court in reviewing an order of the Federal Communications Commission, adopted October 10, 1950, whereby it promulgated standards for the transmission of color television. The significance of these standards lies in the sanction of a system of “incompatible” color television, that is, a system requiring a change in existing receivers for the reception of black and white as well as colored pictures. The system sanctioned by the Commission’s order will require the addition of an appropriate gadget to the millions of outstanding receiving sets at a variously estimated, but in any event substantial, cost. From the point of view of the public interest, it is highly desirable to have a color television system that is compatible. The Commission’s order sanctioning an incompatible system is based not on the scientific unattainability of a compatible system, nor even on a forecast that its feasibility is remote. It rests on the determination that inasmuch as compatibility has not yet been achieved, while a workable incompatible system has proven itself, such a system, however intrinsically unsatisfactory, ought no longer to be withheld from the public.
After hearings on the Commission’s proposals were closed, the Radio Corporation of America, persistent promoter of a compatible system, suggested to the Commission further consideration of the progress made after the Commission had taken the matter under advisement in May, 1950. To be sure, this proffer of relevant information concerning progress toward the desired goal was made by an interested party. But within the Commission itself the need for further light was urged in view of the rapid development that had been made since the Commission’s hearings got under way. The heart of the controversy was thus put by Commissioner Hennock: “It is of vital importance to the future of television that we make every effort to gain the time necessary for further experimentation leading to the perfection of a compatible color television system.” The Commission did not rule out reasonable hope for the early attainment of compatibility. Indeed, it gave ground for believing that success of experimentation to that end is imminent. But it shut off further inquiry into developments it recognized had grown apace because in its “sound discretion” it concluded that “a delay in reaching a determination with respect to the adoption of standards for color television service . . . would not be conducive to the orderly and expeditious dispatch of the Commission’s business and would not best serve the ends of justice . . . .”
The real question, as I have indicated, is whether this determination of the Commission, considering its nature and its consequences, is beyond judicial scrutiny.
I am no friend of judicial intrusion into the administrative process. I do not believe in a construction of the Communications Act that would cramp the broad powers of the Communications Commission. See National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190. I have no doubt that if Congress chose to withdraw all court review from the Commission’s orders it would be constitutionally free to do so. See Stark v. Wickard, 321 U. S. 288, 312. And I deem it essential to the vitality of the administrative process that, even when subject to judicial review, the Commission be allowed to exercise its powers unhampered by the restrictive procedures appropriate for litigation in the courts. See Federal Communications Comm’n v. National Broadcasting Co., 319 U. S. 239, 248. But so long as the Congress has deemed it right to subject the orders of the Commission to review by this Court, the duty of analyzing the essential issues of an order cannot be escaped by too easy reliance on the conclusions of a district court or on the indisputable formula that an exercise of discretion by the Commission is not to be displaced by a contrary exercise of judicial discretion.
What may be an obvious matter of judgment for the Commission in one situation may so profoundly affect the public interest in another as not to be a mere exercise of conventional discretion. Determinations by the Commission are not abstract determinations. We are not here called upon to pass on the abstract question whether the Commission may refuse to reconsider a problem before it although enlightening new evidence is promised. We are faced with a particular order of great significance. It is not the effect of this order upon commercial rivalries that gives it moment. The Communications Act was not designed as a code for the adjustment of conflicting private interests. It is the fact that the order originates color television, with far-reaching implications to the public interest.
The assumption underlying our system of regulation is that the national interest will be furthered by the fullest possible use of competition. At some point, of course, the Commission must fix standards limiting competition. But once those standards are fixed, the incentive for improvement is relaxed. It is obvious that the money spent by the public to adapt and convert the millions of sets now in use may well make the Commission reluctant to sanction new and better standards for color pictures if those standards would outmode receiving sets adapted to the system already in use. And even if the Commission is willing to adopt a second, inconsistent set of color television standards sometime in the future, the result will be economic waste on a vast scale.
And all to what end? And for what overriding gain? Of course the Commission does not have to wait for the millennium. Of course it does not have to withhold color pictures from the American public indefinitely because improvements in color transmission will steadily be perfected. That is not what is involved here. What the Commission here decided is that it could not wait, or the American public could not wait, a little while longer, with every prospect of a development which, when it does come, concededly will promote the public interest more than the incompatible system now authorized. Surely what constitutes the public interest on an issue like this is not one of those expert matters as to which courts should properly bow to the Commission’s expertness. In any event, nothing was submitted to us on argument, nor do I find anything in the Commission’s brief of 150 pages, which gives any hint as to the public interest that brooks no delay in getting color television even though the method by which it will get it is intrinsically undesirable, inevitably limits the possibilities of an improved system or, in any event, leads to potential great economic waste. The only basis for this haste is that the desired better method has not yet proved itself and in view of past failures there is no great assurance of early success. And so, since a system of color television, though with obvious disadvantages, is available, the requisite public interest which must control the Commission’s authorization is established. I do not agree.
One of the more important sources of the retardation or regression of civilization is man’s tendency to use new inventions indiscriminately or too hurriedly without adequate reflection of long-range consequences. No doubt the radio enlarges man’s horizon. But by making him a captive listener it may make for spiritual impoverishment. Indiscriminate use of the radio denies him the opportunities for reflection and for satisfying those needs of withdrawal of which silent prayer is only one manifestation. It is an uncritical assumption that every form of reporting or communication is equally adaptable to every situation. Thus, there may be a mode of what is called reporting which may defeat the pursuit of justice.
Doubtless, television may find a place among the devices of education; but much long-headed thought and patient experimentation are demanded lest uncritical use may lead to hasty jettisoning of hard-won gains of civilization. The rational process of trial and error implies a wary use of novelty and a critical adoption of change. When a college head can seriously suggest, not by way of irony, that soon there will be no need of people being able to read — that illiteracy will be the saving of wasteful labor — one gets an idea of the possibilities of the new barbarism parading as scientific progress.
Man forgets at terrible cost that the environment in which an event is placed may powerfully determine its effect. Disclosure conveyed by the limitations and power of the camera does not convey the same things to the mind as disclosure made by the limitations and power of pen or voice. The range of presentation, the opportunities for distortion, the impact on reason, the effect on the looker-on as against the reader-hearer, vary; and the differences may be vital. Judgment may be confused instead of enlightened. Feeling may be agitated, not guided; reason deflected, not enlisted. Reason — the deliberative process — has its own requirements, met by one method and frustrated by another.
What evil would be encouraged, what good retarded by delay? By haste, would morality be enhanced, insight deepened, and judgment enlightened? Is it even economically advantageous to give governmental sanction to color television at the first practicable moment, or will it not in fact serve as an added drain on raw materials for which the national security has more exigent needs?
Finally, we are told that the Commission’s determination as to the likely prospect of early attainment of compatibility is a matter within its competence and not subject to court review. But prophecy of technological feasibility is hardly in the domain of expertness so long as scientific and technological barriers do not make the prospect fanciful. In any event, this Court is not without experience in understanding the nature of such complicated issues. We have had occasion before to consider complex scientific matters. Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 1; McCormick v. Graham’s Adm’r, 129 U. S. 1 (harvester) ; Corona Co. v. Dovan Corp., 276 U. S. 358 (improvement in vulcanization of rubber); DeForest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co., 283 U. S. 664 (high-vacuum discharge tube); Radio Corporation v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, 293 U. S. 1 (audion oscillator); Marconi Wireless Co. v. United States, 320 U. S. 1 (wireless telegraphy improvement) ; and Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Rfg. Co., 322 U. S. 471 (oil cracking process).
Experience has made it axiomatic to eschew dogmatism in predicting the impossibility of important developments in the realms of science and technology. Especially when the incentive is great, invention can rapidly upset prevailing opinions of feasibility. One may even generalize that once the deadlock in a particular field of inquiry is broken progress becomes rapid. Thus, the plastics industry developed apace after a bottleneck had been broken in the chemistry of rubbers. Once the efficacy of sulfanila-mide was clearly established, competent investigators were at work experimenting with thousands of compounds, and new and better antibiotics became available in a continuous stream. A good example of the rapid change of opinion that often occurs in judgment of feasibility is furnished by the cyclotron. Only a few years ago distinguished nuclear physicists proclaimed the limits on the energy to which particles could be accelerated by the use of a cyclotron. It was suggested that 12,000,000-volt protons were the maximum obtainable. Within a year the limitations previously accepted were challenged. At the present time there are, I believe, in operation in the United States at least four cyclotrons which accelerate protons to energies of about 400,000,000 volts. One need not have the insight of a great scientific investigator, nor the rashness of the untutored, to be confident that the prognostications now made in regard to the feasibility of a “compatible” color television system will be falsified in the very near future.
The subsidiaries are the National Broadcasting Co. and RCA Victor Distributing Corp. Later, other parties were permitted over the Commission’s objection to intervene in support of RCA’s position. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) intervened as a party defendant.
The order also rejected a system proposed by Color Television, Inc., which is not a party to this litigation.
95 F.Supp. 660 (N.D.Ill.).
“After listening to many hours of oral argument by able counsel representing the respective parties, we formed some rather definite impressions relative to the merits of the order, as well as the proceedings before the Commission upon which it rests. And our reading and study of the numerous and voluminous briefs with which we have been favored have not altered or removed those impressions. Also, in studying the case, we have been unable to free our minds of the question as to why we should devote the time and energy which the importance of the case merits, realizing as we must that the controversy can only be finally terminated by a decision of the Supreme Court. This is so because any decision we make is appealable to that court as a matter of right and we were informed during oral argument, in no uncertain terms, that which otherwise might be expected, that is, that the aggrieved party or parties will immediately appeal. In other words, this is little more than a practice session where the parties prepare and test their ammunition for the big battle ahead.” (Emphasis added.) 95 F. Supp. at 664.
47 U. S. C. §303: “. . . [T]he Commission ... as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires, shall—
“(c) Assign bands of frequencies to the various classes of stations, and assign frequencies for each individual station and determine the power which each station shall use and the time during which it may operate;
“(e) Regulate the kind of apparatus to be used with respect to its external effects and the purity and sharpness of the emissions from each station and from the apparatus therein;
“(f) Make such regulations not inconsistent with law as it may deem necessary to prevent interference between stations and to carry out the provisions of this chapter ....
“(g) Study new uses for radio, provide for experimental uses of frequencies, and generally encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.”
The Commission unanimously believed that CBS had the best system presently available, although two Commissioners dissented on other grounds. The relative merits and demerits of the RCA and CBS systems were summarized as follows:
“[T]he RCA system [is] deficient in the following respects:
“(a) The color fidelity of the RCA picture is not satisfactory.
“ (b) The texture of the color picture is not satisfactory.
“(c) The receiving equipment utilized by the RCA system is exceedingly complex.
“(d) The equipment utilized at the station is exceedingly complex.
“(e) The RCA color system is much more susceptible to certain kinds of interference than the present monochrome system or the CBS system.
“(f) There is not adequate assurance in the record that RCA color pictures can be transmitted over the 2.7 megacycle coaxial cable facilities.
“(g) The RCA system has not met the requirements of successful field testing.
“[T]he CBS system produces a color picture that is most satisfactory from the point of view of texture, color fidelity and contrast. . . . [Receivers and station equipment are simple to operate and . . . receivers when produced on a mass marketing basis should be within the economic reach of the great mass of purchasing public. .. . [E]ven with present equipment the CBS system can produce color pictures of sufficient brightness without objectionable flicker to be adequate for home use and . . . the evidence concerning long persistence phosphors shows that there is a specific method available for still further increasing brightness with no objectionable flicker. Finally, . . . while the CBS system has less geometric resolution than the present monochrome system the addition of color to the picture more than outweighs the loss in geometric resolution so far as apparent definition is concerned.” Second Report of the Commission, October 10,1950, 1 Pike & Fischer Radio Reg. (P. & F.), ¶ 91:26, pp. 91:441-442.
The facts found by the Commission appear in two reports on Color Television Issues. First Report of the Commission, September 1, 1950, 1 P. & F. ¶ 91:24, p. 91:261-; Second Report of the Commission, October 10, 1950, 1 P. & F. ¶ 91:26, p. 91:441. The District Court described the proceedings before the Commission as follows: “The hearing, participated in by all members of the Commission, commenced September 26, 1949 and ended May 26, 1950. In all, fifty-three different witnesses were heard and 265 exhibits received. The transcript of the hearing covers 9717 pages. During the period from November 22, 1949 to February 6, 1950, extensive field tests were made of the three systems [RCA, CBS, Color Television, Inc.] proposed. Progress reports concerning these tests were filed with the Commission by the three proponents during December 1949 and January 1950. Comparative demonstrations of the three proposed systems were made on different dates until May 17, 1950.” 95 F. Supp. at 665.
Emphasis added.
See the particularly interesting historical summary of these efforts in Commissioner Jones’ dissent to the First Report of the Commission, September 1, 1950, 1 P. & F. ¶ 91:24, pp. 91:346-447. His view was that color television standards should have been promulgated long before they were.
See note 6, supra.
See note 6, supra.
National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190, 224.
Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474, 490-491.
See United States v. Pierce Auto Lines, 327 U. S. 515, 534-535. With respect to reopening the record, the Commission said in part: "... [A] new television system is not entitled to a hearing or a reopening of a hearing simply on the basis of a paper presentation. In the radio field many theoretical systems exist and can be described on paper but it is a long step from this process to successful operation. There can be no assurance that a system is going to work until the apparatus has been built and has been tested. None of the new systems or improvements in systems meet these tests so as to warrant reopening of the hearing. . . .
“The Commission does not imply that there is no further room for experimentation. . . . Many of the results of such experimentation can undoubtedly be added without affecting existing receivers. As to others some obsolescence of existing receivers may be involved if the changes are adopted. In the interest of stability this latter type of change will not be adopted unless the improvement is substantial in nature, when compared to the amount of dislocation involved. But when such an improvement does come along, the Commission cannot refuse to consider it merely because the owners of existing receivers might be compelled to spend additional money to continue receiving programs.
“. . . [A]ny improvement that results from the experimentation might face the problem of being incompatible with the present monochrome system or the color system we are adopting today. In that event, the new color system or other improvement will have to sustain the burden of showing that the improvement which results is substantial enough to be worth while when compared to the amount of dislocation involved to receivers then in the hands of the public.” Second Report of the Commission, October 10, 1950, 1 P. & F. ¶ 91:26, pp. 91:445-446.
“Broadcasting as an influence on men’s minds has great possibilities, either of good or evil. The good is that if broadcasting can find a serious audience it is an unrivalled means of bringing vital issues to wider understanding. The evil is that broadcasting is capable of increasing perhaps the most serious of all dangers which threaten democracy and free institutions today — the danger of passivity — of acceptance by masses of orders given to them and of things said to them. Broadcasting has in itself a tendency to encourage passivity, for listening as such, if one does no more, is a passive occupation. Television may be found to have this danger of passivity in even stronger form.” Report of the Broadcasting Committee, 1949 (Cmd. 8116,1951) 75.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases, like Teamsters v. United States, ante, p. 324, involve alleged employment discrimination on the part of an employer and unions in the trucking industry. The employer, East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc., is a common carrier that employs city and over-the-road, or “line,” truckdrivers. The company has a “no-transfer” policy, prohibiting drivers from transferring between terminals or from city-driver to line-driver jobs. In addition, under the applicable collective-bargaining agreements between the company and the unions, competitive seniority runs only from the date an employee enters a particular bargaining unit, so that a line driver’s competitive seniority does not take into account any time he may have spent in other jobs with the company.
The respondents brought this suit against the company and the unions in a Federal District Court, challenging the above practices. Although their complaint denominated the cause as a class action, they did not move for class certification in the trial court. After a two-day hearing the court dismissed the class allegations of the complaint and decided against the individual respondents on the merits. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, after itself certifying what it considered an appropriate class and holding that the no-transfer rule and the seniority system violated the statutory rights of that class under 42 U. S. C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seg. (1970 ed. and Supp. V). 505 F. 2d 40. This Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 425 U. S. 990.
I
The respondents are three Mexican-Americans who initiated this litigation as the named plaintiffs, Jesse Rodriguez, Sadrach Perez, and Modesto Herrera. They were employed as city drivers at the company’s San Antonio terminal, and were members of Teamsters Local Union 657 and of the Southern Conference of Teamsters. There was no line-driver operation at the San Antonio terminal, and the respondents stipulated that they had not been discriminated against when they were first hired. In August 1970, some years after they were hired, each of them applied in writing for a line-driver job. In accord with its no-transfer policy, the company declined to consider these applications on their individual merits. The respondents then filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and after receiving “right to sue” letters from the Commission, see 42 U. S. C. §.2000e-5 (e), they brought this lawsuit.
According to the complaint, the suit was brought on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all Negroes and Mexican-Americans who had been denied equal employment opportunities with the company because of their race or national origin. The complaint specifically alleged that the appropriate class should consist of all “East Texas Motor Freight’s Mexican-American and Black in-city drivers included in the collective bargaining agreement entered into between East Texas Motor Freight and the Southern Conference of Teamsters covering the State of Texas. Additionally that such class should properly be composed of all Mexican-American and Black applicants for line driver positions with East Texas Motor Freight . . . from July 2, 1965 [the effective date of Title VII] to present.”
Despite the class allegations in their complaint, the plaintiffs did not move prior to trial to have the action certified as a class action pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, and no such certification was made by the District Judge. Indeed, the plaintiffs had stipulated before trial that “ The only issue presently before the Court pertaining to the company is whether the failure of the Defendant East Texas Motor Freight to consider Plaintiffs’ line driver applications constituted a violation of Title VII and 42 U. S. C. § 1981.’ ” App. 82. And the plaintiffs confined their evidence and arguments at trial to their individual claims. The defendants responded accordingly, with much of their proof devoted to showing that Rodriguez, Perez, and Herrera were not qualified to be line drivers.
Following trial,’ the District Court dismissed the class-action allegations. It stressed the plaintiffs’ failure to move for a prompt determination of the propriety of class certification, their failure to offer evidence on that question, their concentration at the trial on their individual claims, their stipulation that the only issue to be determined concerned the company’s failure to act on their applications, and the fact that, contrary to the relief the plaintiffs sought, see n. 3, supra, a large majority of the membership of Local 657 had recently rejected a proposal calling for the merger of city-driver and line-driver seniority lists with free transfer between jobs.
The District Court also held against the named plaintiffs on their individual claims. It ruled that the no-transfer policy and the seniority system were proper business practices, neutrally applied, and that the company had not discriminated against the plaintiffs or retaliated against them for filing charges with the EEOC. The court further found: “None of the plaintiff employees could satisfy all of the qualifications for a road driver position according to the company manual due to age or weight or driving record. . . . The driving, work, and/or physical records of the plaintiffs are of such nature that only casual consideration need be given to determine that the plaintiffs cannot qualify to become road drivers.” App. 64.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. With respect to the propriety of the class action, the appellate court discounted entirely the plaintiffs’ failure to move for certification. Determination of the class nature of a suit, the court ruled, is a “responsibility [that] falls to the court.” 505 F. 2d, at 50. Although the plaintiffs had acknowledged on appeal that only their individual claims had been tried, and had requested no more than that the case be remanded to the trial court for consideration of the class-action allegations, the Court of Appeals itself certified a class consisting of all of the company’s Negro and Mexican-American city drivers covered by the applicable collective-bargaining agreements for the State of Texas. Stating that “the requirements of Rule 23 (a) must be read liberally in the context of suits brought under Title VII and Section 1981,” ibid., the court found that the named plaintiffs could “ ‘fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.’ ” Ibid. The court minimized the antagonism between the plaintiffs and other city drivers with respect to the complaint’s demand that seniority lists be merged, since “[t]he disagreement . . . concerned only the proper remedy; there was no antagonism with regard to the contention that the defendants practiced discrimination against the plaintiff class.” Id., at 51.
After certifying the class, the Court of Appeals went on to find classwide liability against the company and the union on the basis of the proof adduced at the trial of the individual claims. Contrary to the understanding of the judge who had tried the case, the appellate court determined that the trial had proceeded “as in a class action,” with the acquiescence of the judge and the defendants. Id., at 52. The parties’ stipulation that the only issue before the trial court concerned the company’s failure to consider the named plaintiffs’ applications for line-driver jobs was discounted as no more than “an attempt to eliminate some confusion in the exposition of evidence at trial.” Ibid.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded, upon the trial record, that the company had discriminated against Negroes and Mexican-Americans in hiring line drivers, that the company’s no-transfer rule and seniority system perpetuated the past discrimination and were not justified by business necessity, that the company’s requirement of three years of immediately prior line-haul experience was an illegal employment qualification, and that the unions had violated Title VII and 42 U. S. C. § 1981 by “their role in establishing separate seniority rosters that failed to make allowance for minority city drivers who had been discriminatorily relegated to city driver jobs.” 505 F. 2d, at 61. The Court of Appeals did not disturb the trial court’s finding that none of the named plaintiffs was qualified to be a line driver; rather, it held only that that finding had been “premature,” because each plaintiff, as a member of the class, would be entitled to have his application considered on the merits when future line-driver vacancies arose.
II
It is our conclusion that on the record before it the Court of Appeals plainly erred in declaring a class action and in imposing upon the petitioners classwide liability. In arriving at this conclusion we do not reach the question whether a court of appeals should ever certify a class in the first instance. For it is inescapably clear that the Court of Appeals in any event erred in certifying a class in this case, for the simple reason that it was evident by the time the case reached that court that the named plaintiffs were not proper class representatives under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (a).
In short, the trial court proceedings made clear that Rodriguez, Perez, and Herrera were not members of the class of discriminatees they purported to represent. As this Court has repeatedly held, a class representative must be part of the class and “possess the same interest and suffer the same injury” as the class members. Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 216. See, e. g., Kremens v. Bartley, ante, at 131 n. 12; Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 403; Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752, 759 n. 9; Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45, 49; Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 32-33. The District Court found upon abundant evidence that these plaintiffs lacked the qualifications to be hired as line drivers. Thus, they could have suffered no injury as a result of the alleged discriminatory practices, and they were, therefore, simply not eligible to represent a class of persons who did allegedly suffer injury. Furthermore, each named plaintiff stipulated that he had not been discriminated against with respect to his initial hire. In the light of that stipulation they were hardly in a position to mount a classwide attack on the no-transfer rule and seniority system on the ground that these practices perpetuated past discrimination and locked minorities into the less desirable jobs to which they had been discriminatorily assigned.
Apart from the named plaintiffs' evident lack of class membership, the record before the Court of Appeals disclosed at least two other strong indications that they would not “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” One was their failure to move for class certification prior to trial. Even assuming, as a number of courts have held, that a district judge has an obligation on his own motion to determine whether an action shall proceed as a class action, see, e. g., Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F. 2d 511, 520-521 (CA6); Garrett v. City of Hamtramck, 503 F. 2d 1236, 1243 (CA6); Castro v. Beecher, 459 F. 2d 725, 731 (CA1), the named plaintiffs’ failure to protect the interests of class members by moving for certification surely bears strongly on the adequacy of the representation that those class members might expect to receive. See, e. g., Nance v. Union Carbide Corp., 540 F. 2d 718, 722-725 (CA4), cert. pending, Nos. 76-828, 76-834; Danner v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 447 F. 2d 159, 164 (CA5); Beasley v. Kroehler Mfg. Co., 406 F. Supp. 926, 931 (ND Tex.); Walker v. Columbia University, 62 F. R. D. 63, 64 (SDNY); Glodgett v. Betit, 368 F. Supp. 211, 214 (Vt.); Herbst v. Able, 45 F. R. D. 451, 453 (SDNY). Another factor, apparent on the record, suggesting that the named plaintiffs were not appropriate class representatives was the conflict between the vote by members of the class rejecting a merger of the city- and line-driver collective-bargaining units, and the demand in the plaintiffs’ complaint for just such a merger. See, e. g., Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. S. 32, 44-45.
We are not unaware that suits alleging racial or ethnic discrimination are often by their very nature class suits, involving classwide wrongs. Common questions of law or fact are typically present. But careful attention to the requirements of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 remains nonetheless indispensable. The mere fact that a complaint alleges racial or ethnic discrimination does not in itself ensure that the party who has brought the lawsuit will be an adequate representative of those who may have been the real victims of that discrimination.
For the reasons we have discussed, the District Court did not err in denying individual relief or in dismissing the class allegations of the respondents’ complaint. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, accordingly, vacated, and the cases are remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Under this policy a city driver must resign his job and forfeit all seniority in order to be eligible for a line-driver job. He gets no priority over other line-driver applicants by virtue of formerly having been with the company, and if he fails to become a line driver he is not automatically entitled to be restored to his city job.
For a fuller description of a similar seniority system, see Teamsters v. United States, ante, at 343-344.
In addition to attacking the legality of the company’s no-transfer and seniority policies, the complaint charged that the company excluded Negroes and Mexican-Americans from line-driver jobs, and that it had discharged plaintiff Perez and harassed plaintiff Rodriguez in retaliation for their having filed charges with the EEOC. The Southern Conference of Teamsters and Teamsters Local 657 were charged with participating in the exclusion of minority persons from line-driver jobs, acquiescing in the company’s other discriminatory practices, and entering into collective-bargaining agreements that perpetuated the discrimination against Mexican-Americans and Negroes and erected “dual lines of seniority.” In addition to other relief, the plaintiffs demanded that the company “merge its line-driver and city-driver seniority lists so as to provide for a singular seniority system based solely on an employee’s anniversary date with the company.”
The large majority of the members of Local 667 at the meeting that rejected the proposal were Mexican-American or Negro city drivers, negating any possibility that the vote was controlled by white persons or by line drivers.
The court also stated that possible antagonism could be cured by tailoring the award of relief, but it did not suggest how such tailoring could be accomplished short of doing what it in fact did: awarding retroactive seniority to discriminatees and ignoring the named plaintiffs’ separate demand that the seniority lines be merged.
The Court of Appeals apparently concluded on the basis of a colloquy appearing in the trial transcript that the parties and the trial judge understood the trial to concern the class claims as well as the individual claims. 505 F. 2d, at 52, and n. 14. This was contrary to the understanding of the trial judge as reflected in his findings. Moreover, as the full colloquy reveals, the trial judge ruled that evidence concerning general company practice would be admitted, not because of the class allegations, but only because it was probative with respect to the plaintiffs’ individual claims.
The Court of Appeals ordered that all class members be given an opportunity to transfer to line-driver jobs with retroactive seniority to be determined under the Fifth Circuit’s “qualification date” principle. See Teamsters v. United States, ante, at 333.
Rule 23 (a) provides:
“(a) Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
Jesse Rodriguez did not have prior over-the-road experience with a truck line. His record as a city driver included at least three accidents and at least five personal injuries. Modesto Herrera had been involved in at least three accidents and seven injuries, resulting in much time lost from work. He had received four warning letters from the company, of which three concerned abnormally low productivity. Sadrach Perez had been fired from his city-driver job by the time of suit. The District Court found that on occasion Perez had claimed to be totally and permanently disabled and had then returned to work, and that customers had complained of his disrespect and discourteousness. The company had placed at least four warning letters in his file before discharging him, referring to his failure to make deliveries, poor production, absence from work, and violation of instructions and company policy. More than 10 customers had notified the company that they would refuse freight if Perez was sent to deliver it and would refuse to give up freight if Perez was sent to receive it. An arbitration committee convened in connection with Perez’ discharge had decided in the company’s favor.
In light of this evidence, the District Court’s finding that none of the respondents was qualified to be a line driver was not clearly erroneous. Nor was this finding in any way “premature.” The trial had concerned the company’s failure to consider the respondents’ individual line-driver applications, and the plaintiffs had requested backpay and transfer with carryover seniority in addition to other relief. Even assuming, arguendo, that the company’s failure even to consider the applications was discriminatory, the company was entitled to prove at trial that the respondents had not been injured because they were not qualified and would not have been hired in any event. See, e. g., Teamsters v. United States, ante, at 369 n. 53. Cf. Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 285-287.
See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (a), quoted in n. 8, supra.
See supra, at 400.
Obviously, a different case would be presented if the District Court had certified a class and only later had it appeared that the named plaintiffs were not class members or were otherwise inappropriate class representatives. In such a case, the class claims would have already been tried, ancl, provided the initial certification was proper and decertification not appropriate, the claims of the class members would not need to be mooted or destroyed because subsequent events or the proof at trial had undermined the named plaintiffs’ individual claims. See, e. g., Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 762-757; Moss v. Lane Co., 471 F. 2d 853, 855-856 (CA4). Where no class has been certified, however, and the class claims remain to be tried, the decision whether the named plaintiffs should represent a class is appropriately made on the full record, including the facts developed at the trial of the plaintiffs’ individual claims. At that point, as the Court of Appeals recognized in this case, “there [are] involved none of the imponderables that make the [class-action] decision so difficult early in litigation.” 505 F. 2d, at 51. See also Cox v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 471 F. 2d 13, 15-16 (CA4).
The union petitioners, in Nos. 75-651 and 75-715, also attack the judgments entered against them in Herrera v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 505 F. 2d 66 (CA5), and Resendis v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 505 F. 2d 69 (CA5). The judgments against the unions in those related cases are also vacated, and the eases are remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of this opinion and our opinion in Teamsters v. United States, ante, p. 324.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Upon consideration of the entire record and the confession of error by the Solicitor General, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is reversed. Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondents are American citizens who want to travel to Cuba. They are inhibited from doing so by a Treasury Department regulation, first promulgated in 1963, which prohibits any transaction involving property in which Cuba, or any national thereof, has “any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect.” 31 CPR § 515.201(b) (1983) (Regulation 201(b)). For a period of about five years, “transactions ordinarily incident to” travel to and from as well as within Cuba were, with some limitations, exempted from the broad prohibition of Regulation 201(b) by a general license. See 31 CFR §515.560 (1983). But this general license was amended in 1982, and the scope of permissible economic transactions in connection with travel to Cuba was significantly narrowed. 47 Fed. Reg. 17030 (1982).
Respondents challenged the amendment to the general license on constitutional and statutory grounds and sought a preliminary injunction against its enforcement. The District Court for the District of Massachusetts concluded that respondents had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and refused to issue the injunction. App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a. On appeal taken by respondents, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, concluding that the challenged amendment lacked statutory authority, vacated the District Court’s order and remanded with instructions to issue the preliminary injunction. 708 F. 2d 794 (1983). We granted the Government’s application for a stay of the mandate, 463 U. S. 1223 (1983), as well as the petition for certiorari, 464 U. S. 990 (1983), and now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
H
Regulation 201(b) was promulgated in 1963 as part of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR pt. 515 (1963), implemented under the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 (TWEA), 40 Stat. 411, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. §1 et seq. See 28 Fed. Reg. 6974 (1963). At that time, §5(b) of TWEA gave the President broad authority to impose comprehensive embargoes on foreign countries as one means of dealing with both peacetime emergencies and times of war. The Cuban Assets Control Regulations constitute such an embargo. They were originally adopted to deal with the peacetime emergency created by Cuban attempts to destabilize governments throughout Latin America. See Presidential Proclamation No. 3447, 3 CFR 157 (1959-1963 Comp.). “[E]xcept as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury,” Regulation 201(b) prohibits all “transactions in-volv[ing] property in which [Cuba], or any national thereof, has... any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect_” 31 CFR § 515.201(b) (1983).
In 1977, Regulation 560 was added to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. See 31 CFR §515.560 (1977). Regulation 560 embodied a general license permitting “persons who visit Cuba to pay for their transportation and maintenance expenditures (meals, hotel bills, taxis, etc.) while in Cuba.” 42 Fed. Reg. 16621 (1977). Thus, travel-related economic transactions with Cuba were, for the most part, exempted from the complete embargo of Regulation 201(b). All persons engaging in travel-related transactions, however, were required to make “a full and accurate record of' each such transaction” and to keep those records available for inspection for at least two years. §515.601. And the general license contained in Regulation 560 was subject to revocation or modification “at any time.” § 515.805.
Later in 1977, § 5(b) of TWEA was amended to limit the President’s power to act pursuant to that statute solely to times of war. In the same bill, a new law was enacted to cover the President’s exercise of emergency economic powers in response to peacetime crises. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II, Pub. L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626 et seq., codified at 50 U. S. C. § 1701 et seq. The authorities granted to the President by § 203 of IEEPA are essentially the same as those in § 5(b) of TWEA, but the conditions and procedures for their exercise are different.
Section 202(a) of IEEPA provides that the authorities granted the President by §203 “may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.” 50 U. S. C. § 1701(a). The President is also required, “in every possible instance,” to consult with Congress prior to exercising his IEEPA authorities and, once such authorities have been exercised, to report to Congress every six months on the actions taken and any changes in the underlying circumstances. § 1703.
However, rather than requiring the President to declare a new national emergency in order to continue existing economic embargoes, such as that against Cuba, Congress decided to grandfather existing exercises of the President’s “national emergency” authorities. Section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223 provides:
“Notwithstanding the amendment made by subsection (a), the authorities conferred upon the President by section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, which were being exercised with respect to a country on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the President before such date, may continue to be exercised with respect to such country... 91 Stat. 1625, note following 50 U. S. C. App. § 5.
This grandfather provision also provided that “[t]he President may extend the exercise of such authorities for one-year periods upon a determination for each such extension that the exercise of such authorities with respect to such country for another year is in the national interest of the United States.” Ibid. Presidents Carter and Reagan, in each of the years since TWE A was amended, have determined that the continued exercise of § 5(b) authorities with respect to Cuba is in the national interest.
In 1982, in order to “reduce Cuba’s hard currency earnings from travel by U. S. persons to and within Cuba,” Regulation 560 was amended to curtail the general license permitting travel-related economic transactions. 47 Fed. Reg. 17030 (1982). As amended, Regulation 560 only licenses travel-related economic transactions in connection with certain types of travel, such as official visits, news gathering, professional research, and visits to close relatives. 31 CFR § 515.560(a)(1) (1983). “[FJully sponsored or hosted travel,” which does not involve any economic benefit to Cuba, is also permitted. §515.560(j). General tourist and business travel, however, is specifically excluded from the authorization contained in the general license. § 515.560(a)(3).
As noted, respondents challenged the amendment to Regulation 560 on a number of statutory and constitutional grounds. Most important of these contentions, and the only one passed on by the court below, is the claim that the amendment is invalid because it was not promulgated in accordance with the procedures mandated by IEEPA. The Government agrees that it did not follow the procedures set out in IEEPA when it amended Regulation 560, but relies for statutory authority for the amendment on the grandfather clause of Public Law 95-223, which preserved those “authorities... being exercised” pursuant to § 5(b) of TWEA on July 1, 1977. The Government argues that the “authority” to regulate travel-related transactions with Cuba was being exercised on July 1, 1977, as part of the general regulation of property transactions contained in Regulation 201(b). Thus, even though most such transactions were not actually prohibited on July 1 because of the general license, the Government contends that the President’s authority to prohibit them was preserved.
The Court of Appeals gave three reasons for rejecting the Government’s argument based, in turn, on the plain language, the legislative history, and the underlying purpose of the 1977 amendment to TWEA. First, “as a matter of common sense and common English,” the court stated, restricting commodity purchases and restricting travel purchases would seem to be very different “exercises” of authority— “different enough at least not to count as the exercise of the same authority.” 708 F. 2d, at 796. Thus, since “the government was not restricting travel to Cuba” on July 1, 1977, its authority to do so was not grandfathered. Ibid. Second, the court thought that the legislative history showed that Congress intended the grandfather clause to be narrowly interpreted to allow the President to continue in effect only those specific “restrictions” actually in place on July 1, 1977. “It did not want the existence of one sort of TWEA restriction in 1977 to serve as a justification for imposing a new one.” Id., at 798.
Finally, the Court of Appeals concluded that the purpose behind the grandfather clause was solely to preserve current restrictions as bargaining chips in negotiations with the affected countries. To require the President to announce publicly a new declaration of emergency in order to preserve existing restrictions on transactions with those countries might have undesirable ramifications. On the other hand, simply to abandon the restrictions without any quid pro quo could be equally undesirable. Thus, the grandfather clause allowed current restrictions to remain in place. But, the court concluded, it would go beyond the purposes of the clause to permit the President to augment his bargaining powers by adding new restrictions. Id., at. 799-800.
II
We find the reasoning of the Court of Appeals ultimately unconvincing on all three counts. The language of the grandfather clause, read in conjunction with § 5(b) of TWEA, supports the Government’s contention that, in the relevant sense, the “authority” to regulate all property transactions with Cuba, including travel-related transactions, was being “exercised” on July 1, 1977 and was, therefore, preserved. And neither the legislative history nor the apparent purpose of the 1977 Act sufficiently supports the contrary contention that what Congress actually intended, despite the statutory language, was to freeze existing restrictions, so that any adjustment of pending embargoes would require the declaration of a new “national emergency” under the procedures of IEEPA.
The grandfather clause in Public Law 95-223 refers to the “authorities conferred upon the President by section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act. ” Among those authorities is the authority to “regulate... any... transactions involving... any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has had any interest.” 50 U. S. C. App. § 5(b). Section 5(b) draws no distinction between the President’s authority over travel-related transactions and his authority over other property transactions. For purposes of TWEA, it is clear that the authority to regulate travel-related transactions is merely part of the President’s general authority to regulate property transactions. Thus, there is no basis for the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, drawn without reference to the actual language of TWEA, that the regulation of travel-related purchases must be based on a separate authority from that governing the regulation of other transactions involving property. In fact, they are based on the same authority.
It is also clear that the President’s authority to regulate property transactions with Cuba and Cubans was being exercised on July 1, 1977. Regulation 201(b), which was in force on July 1, 1977, and continues in full force and effect today, explicitly prohibits, except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury, all transactions involving property in which Cuba or Cuban nationals have “any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect.” 31 CFR § 515.201(b) (1983). Thus, absent an explicit license, all transactions involving Cuban property are and, at all relevant times, have been prohibited.
On July 1, 1977, most travel-related transactions with Cuba and Cuban nationals were permitted by a general license. But that does not change the fact that the President was exercising his §5(b) authorities with respect to those transactions. Section 5(b) specifically states that the authorities granted therein may be exercised “by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise.” On July 1, 1977, the President was exercising his authority over travel-related transactions with Cuba and Cubans by means of a general license which exempted them from the categorical prohibition of Regulation 201(b).
At that time, travel-related transactions involving Cuban property were still subject to the recordkeeping requirements of 31 CFR §515.601 (1977). Other restrictions were also imposed. See n. 6, supra. And the general license was expressly subject to revocation, amendment, or modification “at any time.” § 515.805. Thus, travel-related transactions “were specifically made subordinate to further actions which the President might take....” Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, 673 (1981). And when the general license was amended in 1982, so that most travel-related transactions were no longer specifically authorized, such transactions automatically became subject, once again, to the prohibition of Regulation 201(b).
Since the authority to regulate travel-related transactions was among those “authorities conferred upon the President” by § 5(b) of TWEA “which were being exercised” with respect to Cuba on July 1, 1977, it seems to us to follow from a natural reading of the grandfather clause that the authority to regulate such transactions “may continue to be exercised” with respect to Cuba after that date. Pub. L. 95-223, § 101(b), 91 Stat. 1625. And since the President’s authority under § 5(b) to regulate by means of licenses includes the authority to “prevent or prohibit” as well as the authority to “direct and compel,” 50 U. S. C. App. § 5(b)(1)(B), it also follows that the grandfather clause constitutes adequate statutory authority for the 1982 amendment to the general license, the practical effect of which was to prevent travel to Cuba.
A contrary, more constricted reading of the grandfather clause does undue violence to the words chosen by Congress. The clause refers to “authorities” being exercised on July 1, 1977, not to “prohibitions” actually in place on that date. And it provides that those authorities “may continue to be exercised.” If Congress had wished to freeze existing restrictions, it could easily have done so explicitly. The fact that it did not do so, but instead used the generic term “authorities,” indicates that Congress intended the President to retain some flexibility to adjust existing embargoes.
The Court of Appeals felt that its more constricted reading of the grandfather clause comported with the legislative history surrounding the enactment of Public Law 95-223. We would certainly agree that the following colloquy between Representative Cavanaugh and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Bergsten, the administration’s spokesman for the bill, supports a narrow reading of the grandfather clause:
“MR. CAVANAUGH.... First of all, Mr. Bergsten, would it be your understanding that [the grandfather clause] would strictly limit and restrict the grandfathering of powers currently being exercised under 5(b) [of TWEA] to those specific uses of the authorities granted in 5(b) being employed as of June 1, 1977.
“MR. BERGSTEN. Yes, sir.
“MR. CAVANAUGH. And it would preclude the expansion by the President of the authorities that might be included in 5(b) but are not being employed as of June 1, 1977.
“MR. BERGSTEN. That is right.”
We also agree that a narrow construction at least appears to be supported by Representative Bingham’s objections to, and the subsequent elimination of, language in a Subcommittee staff draft which would have expressly grandfathered presently unused authorities of the President under §5(b) of TWEA so long as they were used to deal with a “set of circumstances” already being dealt with under some other authority.
But even if these were the only available indications of congressional intent apart from the language which Congress enacted, we would have grave doubts that they were sufficient to overcome what seems to us to be the clear, generic meaning of the word “authorities.” Oral testimony of witnesses and individual Congressmen, unless very precisely directed to the intended meaning of particular words in a statute, can seldom be expected to be as precise as the enacted language itself. To permit what we regard as clear statutory language to be materially altered by such colloquies, which often take place before the bill has achieved its final form, would open the door to the inadvertent, or perhaps even planned, undermining of the language actually voted on by Congress and signed into law by the President.
In our opinion, a full examination of the legislative history — the Subcommittee hearings, markup sessions, floor debates, and House and Senate Reports — does not support the view that only those restrictions actually in place on July 1, 1977, were to be grandfathered. The crucial point is that the discussion, even in the Cavanaugh and Bingham excerpts, is consistently carried on in terms of existing “powers” and “authorities,” not in terms of existing “restrictions” or “prohibitions.” The legislative history simply does not countenance the suggestion that Congress really meant “restrictions” even though it wrote “authorities.”
Finally, we reject the Court of Appeals’ view that the purpose of the grandfather clause was merely to preserve existing bargaining chips in negotiations with affected countries. There are some statements in the Subcommittee hearings to the effect that existing embargoes should not be abandoned without exacting some sort of negotiated quid pro quo. But it is clear that the prime reason that existing embargoes were grandfathered was to keep the bill, H. R. 7738 — which included IEEPA as well as the amendments to TWEA — from becoming too controversial. Members of the Subcommittee feared that if current embargoes were implicated the bill would bog down in partisan disputes, thereby delaying implementation of the new procedures of IEEPA.
The House Report is explicit on this point.
“Certain current uses of the authorities affected by H. R. 7738 are controversial — particularly the total U. S. trade embargoes of Cuba and Vietnam. The committee considered carefully whether to revise, or encourage the President to revise, such existing uses of international economic transaction controls, and thereby the policies they reflect, in this legislation. The committee decided that to revise current uses, and to improve policies and procedures that wall govern future uses, in a single bill would be difficult and divisive. Committee members concluded that improved procedures for future use of emergency international economic powers should take precedence over changing existing uses. By ‘grandfathering’ existing uses of these powers, without either endorsing or disclaiming them, H. R. 7738 adheres to the committee’s decision to try to assure improved future uses rather than remedy possible past abuses.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-459, pp. 9-10 (1977).
Hewing to this noncontroversial approach, Representative Bingham, the Chairman of the responsible House Subcommittee, assured the Members of the House that “this legislation specifically grandfathers the embargoes against Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, and other existing embargoes, so that they are not affected in any way by this legislation.” 123 Cong. Rec. 38166 (1977) (emphasis added). Our reading of the grandfather clause is consistent with these clear statements of its purpose and effect. Eliminating the President’s authority to modify existing licenses in response to heightened tensions with Cuba would have sparked just the sort of controversy the grandfather clause was designed to avoid. See Emergency Controls Hearings, at 207 (summary of staff draft); id., at 210 (remarks of Rep. Bingham).
Ill
Respondents finally urge that if we do find that the President is authorized by Congress to enforce the regulations here in question, their enforcement violates respondents’ right to travel guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Respondents rely on a number of our prior decisions which recognized such a right, beginning in 1958 with Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116. Respondents’ counsel undoubtedly speaks with some authority as to these cases, since he represented the would-be travelers in most of them.
In Kent, the Court held that Congress had not authorized the Secretary of State to inquire of passport applicants as to affiliation with the Communist Party. The Court noted that the right to travel “is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law,” id., at 125, and stated that it would “construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute” that right. Id., at 129. Subsequently, in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 514 (1964), the Court held that a provision of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 993, forbidding the issuance of a passport to a member of the Communist Party, “sweeps too widely and too indiscriminately across the liberty guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment.”
Both Kent and Aptheker, however, were qualified the following Term in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1 (1965). In that case, the Court sustained against constitutional attack a refusal by the Secretary of State to validate the passports of United States citizens for travel to Cuba. The Secretary of State in Zemel, as here, made no effort selectively to deny passports on the basis of political belief or affiliation, but simply imposed a general ban on travel to Cuba following the break in diplomatic and consular relations with that country in 1961. The Court in Zemel distinguished Kent on grounds equally applicable to Aptheker.
“It must be remembered... that the issue involved in Kent was whether a citizen could be denied a passport because of his political beliefs or associations.... In this case, however, the Secretary has refused to validate appellant’s passport not because of any characteristic peculiar to appellant, but rather because of foreign policy considerations affecting all citizens.” 381 U. S., at 13.
The Court went on to note that, although the ban in question effectively prevented travel to Cuba, and thus diminished the right to gather information about foreign countries, no First Amendment rights of the sort that controlled in Kent and Aptheker were implicated by the across-the-board restriction in Zemel. And the Court found the Fifth Amendment right to travel, standing alone, insufficient to overcome the foreign policy justifications supporting the restriction.
“That the restriction which is challenged in this case is supported by the weightiest considerations of national security is perhaps best pointed up by recalling that the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 preceded the filing of appellant’s complaint by less than two months.” 381 U. S., at 16.
We see no reason to differentiate between the travel restrictions imposed by the President in the present case and the passport restrictions imposed by the Secretary of State in Zemel. Both have the practical effect of preventing travel to Cuba by most American citizens, and both are justified by weighty concerns of foreign policy.
Respondents apparently feel that only a Cuban missile crisis in the offing will make area restrictions on international travel constitutional. They argue that there is no “emergency” at the present time and that the relations between Cuba and the United States are subject to “only the ‘normal’ tensions inherent in contemporary international affairs.” Brief for Respondents 55. The holding in Zemel, however, was not tied to the Court’s independent foreign policy analysis. Matters relating “to the conduct of foreign relations.... are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 589 (1952). Our holding in Zemel was merely an example of this classical deference to the political branches in matters of foreign policy.
The Cuban Assets Control Regulations were first promulgated during the administration of President Kennedy. They have been retained, though alternately loosened and tightened in response to specific circumstances, ever since. In every year since the enactment of IEEPA in 1977, first President Carter and then President Reagan have determined that the continued exercise of the authorities of § 5(b) of TWE A against Cuba is in the national interest. See n. 10, supra. Since both were acting under the grandfather clause of Public Law 95-223, there was no legal requirement that either of them proclaim a new national emergency under the procedures of IEEPA. But the absence of such a proclamation does not detract from the evidence presented to both the District Court and the Court of Appeals to the effect that relations between Cuba and the United States have not been “normal” for the last quarter of a century, and that those relations have deteriorated further in recent years due to increased Cuban efforts to destabilize governments throughout the Western Hemisphere. See Enders Declaration ¶ 5, App. 172.
In the opinion of the State Department, Cuba, with the political, economic, and military backing of the Soviet Union, has provided widespread support for armed violence and terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba also maintains close to 40,000 troops in various countries in Africa and the Middle East in support of objectives inimical to United States foreign policy interests. See Frechette Declaration ¶4, App. 107. Given the traditional deference to executive judgment “[i]n this vast external realm,” United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 319 (1936), we think there is an adequate basis under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to sustain the President’s decision to curtail the flow of hard currency to Cuba — currency that could then be used in support of Cuban adventurism — by restricting travel. Zemel v. Rusk, supra, at 14-15; Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 306-307 (1981).
IV
In sum, we conclude, based on an analysis of the language of the grandfather clause as well as its purpose and legislative history, that the grandfathered authorities of § 5(b) of TWEA provide an adequate statutory basis for the 1982 amendment restricting the scope of permissible travel-related transactions with Cuba and Cuban nationals. We also conclude that such restrictions do not violate the freedom to travel protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Alternative statutory authority for the Cuban Assets Control Regulations was found in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 424. See 28 Fed. Reg. 6974 (1963). Section 620(a) of that Act, which is still in force, provides:
“No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter to the present government of Cuba. As an additional means of implementing and carrying into effect the policy of the preceding sentence, the President is authorized to establish and maintain a total embargo upon all trade between the United States and Cuba.” 22 U. S. C. § 2370(a).
The Government has chosen not to rely on § 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act as statutory authority for the 1982 limitations on permissible travel-related economic transactions, apparently for two reasons. See Brief for Petitioners 4, n. 8. First, the scope of § 5(b) of TWEA, see n. 2, infra, appears to be broader than that of § 620(a) insofar as it reaches financial transactions unrelated to trade. Second, the Foreign Assistance Act does not provide criminal penalties for violations of the regulations promulgated under it. TWEA does so provide. See 50 U. S. C. App. §16.
In 1963, § 5(b) of TWEA provided in relevant part:
“(1) During the time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—
“(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and
“(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest_” 50 U. S. C. App. § 5(b) (1958 ed.).
TWEA was first passed in 1917, six months after the United States entered World War I. See Act of Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 106, 40 Stat. 411. As originally enacted, TWEA dealt only with the President’s use of economic powers in times of war. The Act was expanded to deal with peacetime national emergencies in 1933. Act of Mar. 9, 1933, ch. 1, 48 Stat. 1. The President has delegated his authority under TWEA to the Secretary of the Treasury, Exec. Order No. 9193, 3 CFR 1174,1175 (1942), who in turn has delegated that authority to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury Department Order No. 128 (Rev. 1, Oct. 15, 1962).
Similar embargoes are in place against North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia. See 31 CFR pt. 500 (1983).
The Cuban Assets Control Regulations incorporated and expanded upon prior economic sanctions imposed on Cuba. See, e. g., 27 Fed. Reg. 1116 (1962) (complete embargo on imports from Cuba); 43 Dept. State Bull. 715 (1960) (denial of export licenses for most industrial exports to Cuba). For a more complete statement of the policies behind these restrictions and the circumstances that precipitated their imposition, see Report of the Special Committee to Study Resolutions II. 1 and VIII of the Eighth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, OEA/Ser. G/IV, pp. 14-16 (1963); Cuba, Dept. of State Pub. No. 7171, pp. 25-36 (1961). See also Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 14-15 (1965).
Regulation 560 was first passed on March 29, 1977. 42 Fed. Reg. 16621. It was amended on May 18, 1977, to further relax existing restrictions on travel-related transactions with Cuba. 42 Fed. Reg. 25499.
Some restrictions remained. For example, travelers were not allowed to purchase merchandise in Cuba with a foreign market value in excess of $100. Moreover, such merchandise could be purchased for personal use only and could not be resold. 31 CFR § 515.560(a)(3) (1977). Also, scheduled air and sea travel to Cuba was still prohibited, § 515.560(a)(5), as were any contracts between domestic credit card issuers and any Cuban enterprises “for the extension of credit to any traveler for any purpose,” § 515.560(a)(7).
Title I, §101, of Pub. L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1625, amended §5(b) of TWEA “by striking out ‘or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President’ in the text preceding subparagraph (A).” For the text of § 5(b) prior to this amendment, see n. 2, supra.
See Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, 671 (1981). There are some differences, however. The grant of authorities in IEEPA does not include the power to vest (i. e., to take title to) foreign assets, to regulate purely domestic transactions, to regulate gold or bullion, or to seize records. See H. R. Rep. No. 95-459, pp. 14-15 (1977).
Congress has reserved to itself the authority to terminate any declared national emergency by concurrent resolution. 50 U. S. C. § 1622.
See48 Fed. Reg. 40695 (1983); 47 Fed. Reg. 39797 (1982); 46 Fed. Reg. 45321 (1981); 45 Fed. Reg. 59549 (1980); 44 Fed. Reg. 53153 (1979); 43 Fed. Reg. 40449 (1978).
Regulation 560 was amended again in July of that year to further clarify the scope of permissible travel-related transactions with Cuba. 47 Fed. Reg. 32060 (1982). For a statement of the policies behind the amendments, see Declaration of Thomas O. Enders, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, ¶¶ 5-14, App. 172-177; Declaration of James H. Michel, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs ¶¶3-7, App. 178-181; Declaration of Myles R. R. Frechette, Director, Office of Cuban Affairs, Department of State ¶¶ 4-10, App. 107-108. See also infra, at 243.
As amended, Regulation 560 provides that special licenses may be issued in appropriate cases for travel-related transactions by “persons desiring to travel to Cuba for humanitarian reasons, or for purposes of public performances, public exhibitions, or similar activities.” 31 CFR § 515.560(b) (1983).
Respondents also claimed that the 1982 travel restrictions violated the 1978 Passport Act, 22 U. S. C. § 211a, which prohibits area restrictions on passports except in certain circumstances; that they exceeded the authority conferred by TWEA and by IEEPA; and that they violated respondents’ First and Fifth Amendment rights, including the right to travel, due process, and equal protection. See Complaint ¶ 14, App. 9.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit accepted the second and third of these reasons in striking down another regulation passed under the grandfather clause to the 1977 amendmends to TWEA. United States v. Frade, 709 F. 2d 1387, 1397-1402 (1983).
The Court of Appeals bolstered its conclusion with two additional considerations. First, the court noted that our cases required it to “construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute” the right to travel, Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 129 (1958), and that “[t]hat principle of narrow interpretation applies here.” 708 F. 2d, at 800. Second, the court noted that in 1978 Congress amended the Passport Act, 22 U. S. C. § 211a, to prohibit the Executive Branch from imposing peacetime passport travel restrictions without the authorization of Congress, except for health and safety considerations. Pub. L. 95-426, §
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The respondent, Louis Cuen Taylor, was convicted of 28 counts of first-degree murder arising out of a fire set in a hotel in 1970. He received a sentence of life imprisonment on each count. After the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences, State v. Taylor, 112 Ariz. 68, 537 P. 2d 938 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U. S. 921 (1976), he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The District Court denied the writ, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether certain statements made by Taylor and introduced in evidence against him were voluntary. 579 F. 2d 1380 (1978). On remand, the District Court decided that the statements were voluntary and again denied the writ. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed once more. 692 F. 2d 765 (1982). It relied on Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200 (1979), decided after the first appeal to the Ninth Circuit but before the hearing on remand. In Dunaway, this Court required the exclusion of custodial statements following an arrest that violated the Fourth Amendment, unless the circumstances showed the attenuation of the taint of the illegal arrest. The Court of Appeals stated that the District Court “should have permitted the petitioner to argue the Fourth Amendment issue.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a. Although the District Court had not considered the issue, the Court of Appeals thought the record sufficient to permit it to resolve the question. It determined that Taylor had been arrested without probable cause and that “[n]o significant event intervened” between the illegal arrest and the statements to attenuate the taint. Id., at 3a. Consequently, it directed the District Court to issue the writ. We now reverse.
In Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976), Powell, like the respondent in this case, argued that evidence used in his trial was the product of an illegal arrest. This Court held that federal courts could not, on a state prisoner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, consider a claim that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should have been excluded at his trial, when the prisoner has had an opportunity for full and fair litigation of that claim in the state courts. The Court of Appeals in this case, however, did just that, holding that the custodial statements made by Taylor were obtained in violation of our decision in Dun-away. Dunaway relied not on the involuntariness of the statements made — a concern under the Fifth Amendment— but on whether there was an unattenuated causal link between the statements and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, the Court in Dunaway sought to dispel any “lingering confusion between ‘voluntariness’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment and the ‘causal connection’ test established” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. 442 U. S., at 219. Therefore, under Stone v. Powell, the Court of Appeals should not have considered the petitioner’s argument that Dunaway required the exclusion of his statements. Only if the statements were involuntary, and therefore obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment, could the federal courts grant relief on collateral review. On remand, the Court of Appeals should review the District Court’s decision on voluntariness, giving appropriate deference, of course, to any findings of fact made by the state courts in the long course of these proceedings, Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539 (1981). The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, and an opinion with respect to Parts III and IV, in which Justice Auto joins.
Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), 116 Stat. 91, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), makes it a federal crime for any corporation to broadcast, shortly before an election, any communication that names a federal candidate for elected office and is targeted to the electorate. In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), this Court considered whether §203 was facially overbroad under the First Amendment because it captured within its reach not only campaign speech, or “express advocacy,” but also speech about public issues more generally, or “issue advocacy,” that mentions a candidate for federal office. The Court concluded that there was no overbreadth concern to the extent the speech in question was the “functional equivalent” of express campaign speech. Id., at 204-205, 206. On the other hand, the Court “assume[d]” that the interests it had found to “justify the regulation of campaign speech might not apply to the regulation of genuine issue ads.” Id., at 206, n. 88. The Court nonetheless determined that §203 was not facially overbroad. Even assuming §203 “inhibited] some constitutionally protected corporate and union speech,” the Court concluded that those challenging the law on its face had failed to carry their “heavy burden” of establishing that all enforcement of the law should therefore be prohibited. Id., at 207.
Last Term, we reversed a lower court ruling, arising in the same litigation before us now, that our decision in McConnell left “no room” for as-applied challenges to §203. App. to Juris. Statement 52a. We held on the contrary that “[i]n upholding §203 against a facial challenge, we did not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges.” Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 546 U. S. 410, 412 (2006) (per curiam) (WRTL I).
We now confront such an as-applied challenge. Resolving it requires us first to determine whether the speech at issue is the “functional equivalent” of speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office, or instead a “genuine issue a[d].” McConnell, supra, at 206, and n. 88. We have long recognized that the distinction between campaign advocacy and issue advocacy “may often dissolve in practical application. Candidates, especially incumbents, are intimately tied to public issues involving legislative proposals and governmental actions.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 42 (1976) (per curiam). Our development of the law in this area requires us, however, to draw such a line, because we have recognized that the interests held to justify the regulation of campaign speech and its “functional equivalent” “might not apply” to the regulation of issue advocacy. McConnell, supra, at 206, and n. 88.
In drawing that line, the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it. We conclude that the speech at issue in this as-applied challenge is not the “functional equivalent” of express campaign speech. We further conclude that the interests held to justify restricting corporate campaign speech or its functional equivalent do not justify restricting issue advocacy, and accordingly we hold that BCRA §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.
I
Prior to BCRA, corporations were free under federal law to use independent expenditures to engage in political speech so long as that speech did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate. See Federal Election Comm’n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238, 249 (1986) (MCFL); Buckley, supra, at 44-45; 2 U. S. C. §§441b(a), (b)(2) (2000 ed. and Supp. IV).
BCRA significantly cut back on corporations’ ability to engage in political speech. BCRA §203, at issue in these cases, makes it a crime for any labor union or incorporated entity — whether the United Steelworkers, the American Civil Liberties Union, or General Motors — to use its general treasury funds to pay for any “electioneering communication.” §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). BCRA’s definition of “electioneering communication” is clear and expansive. It encompasses any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a candidate for federal office and that is aired within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a federal general election in the jurisdiction in which that candidate is running for office. § 434(f)(3)(A).
Appellee Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), is a nonprofit, nonstock, ideological advocacy corporation recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as tax exempt under § 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. On July 26, 2004, as part of what it calls a “grassroots lobbying campaign,” Brief for Appellee 8, WRTL began broadcasting a radio advertisement entitled ‘Wedding.” The transcript of ‘Wedding” reads as follows:
“ ‘PASTOR: And who gives this woman to be married to this man?
“‘BRIDE’S FATHER: Well, as father of the bride, I certainly could. But instead, I’d like to share a few tips on how to properly install, drywall. Now you put the drywall up...
“ ‘VOICE-OVER: Sometimes it’s just not fair to delay an important decision.
“ ‘But in Washington it’s happening. A group of Senators is using the filibuster delay tactic to block federal judicial nominees from a simple “yes” or “no” vote. So qualified candidates don’t get a chance to serve.
“ ‘It’s politics at work, causing gridlock and backing up some of our courts to a state of emergency.
“‘Contact Senators Feingold and Kohl and tell them to oppose the filibuster.
“ ‘Visit: BeFair.org
“‘Paid for by Wisconsin Right to Life (befair.org), which is responsible for the content of this advertising and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.’” 466 F. Supp. 2d 195,198, n. 3 (DC 2006).
On the same day, WRTL aired a similar radio ad entitled “Loan.” It had also invested treasury funds in producing a television ad entitled “Waiting,” ****8which is similar in substance and format to “Wedding” and “Loan.”
WRTL planned on running “Wedding,” “Waiting,” and “Loan” throughout August 2004 and financing the ads with funds from its general treasury. It recognized, however, that as of August 15,30 days prior to the Wisconsin primary, the ads would be illegal “electioneering communieation[s]” under BCRA §203.
Believing that it nonetheless possessed a First Amendment right to broadcast these ads, WRTL filed suit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on July 28, 2004, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief before a three-judge District Court. See note following 2 U. S. C. §437h (2000 ed., Supp. IV); 28 U. S. C. §2284. WRTL alleged that BCRA’s prohibition on the use of corporate treasury funds for “electioneering communication^]” as defined in the Act is unconstitutional as applied to “Wedding,” “Loan,” and “Waiting,” as well as any materially similar ads it might seek to run in the future.
Just before the BCRA blackout period was to begin, the District Court denied a preliminary injunction, concluding that “the reasoning of the McConnell Court leaves no room for the kind of ‘as applied’ challenge WRTL propounds before us.” App. to Juris. Statement 52a. In response to this ruling, WRTL did not run its ads during the blackout period. The District Court subsequently dismissed WRTL’s complaint. See id., at 47a-48a (“WRTL’s ‘as-applied’ challenge to BCRA [§203] is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell”). On appeal, we vacated the District Court’s judgment, holding that McConnell “did not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges” to BCRA §203, and remanded “for the District Court to consider the merits of WRTL’s as-applied challenge in the first instance.” WRTL I, 546 U. S., at 412.
On remand, after allowing four Members of Congress to intervene as defendants, the three-judge District Court granted summary judgment for WRTL, holding BCRA §203 unconstitutional as applied to the three advertisements WRTL planned to run during the 2004 blackout period. The District Court first found adjudication of the dispute not barred by mootness because the controversy was “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” 466 F. Supp. 2d, at 202. Turning to the merits, the court began by noting that under McConnell, BCRA could constitutionally proscribe “express advocacy” — defined as ads that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office — and the “functional equivalent” of such advocacy. 466 F. Supp. 2d, at 204. Stating that it was limiting its inquiry to “language within the four corners” of the ads, id., at 207, the District Court concluded that the ads were not express advocacy or its functional equivalent, but instead “genuine issue ads,” id., at 205-208. Then, reaching a question “left open in McConnell,” the court held that no compelling interest justified BCRA’s regulation of genuine issue ads such as those WRTL sought to run. Id., at 208-210.
One judge dissented, contending that the majority’s “plain facial analysis of the text in WRTL’s 2004 advertisements” ignored “the context in which the text was developed.” Id., at 210 (opinion of Roberts, J.). In that judge’s view, a contextual analysis of the ads revealed “deep factual rifts between the parties concerning the purpose and intended effects of the ads” such that neither side was entitled to summary judgment. Id., at 210, 211.
The FEC and intervenors filed separate notices of appeal and jurisdictional statements. We consolidated the two appeals and set the matter for briefing and argument, postponing further consideration of jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 549 U. S. 1177 (2007).
II
Article Ill’s “case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings.... [I]t is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when suit was filed.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 477 (1990). Based on these principles, the FEC argues (though the intervenors do not) that these cases are moot because the 2004 election has passed and WRTL “does not assert any continuing interest in running [its three] advertisements, nor does it identify any reason to believe that a significant dispute over Senate filibusters of judicial nominees will occur in the foreseeable future.” Brief for Appellant FEC 21.
As the District Court concluded, however, these cases fit comfortably within the established exception to mootness for disputes capable of repetition, yet evading review. See Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 109 (1983); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911). The exception applies where “(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U. S. 1, 17 (1998) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Both circumstances are present here.
As the District Court found, it would be “entirely unreasonable... to expect that [WRTL] could have obtained complete judicial review of its claims in time for it to air its ads” during the BCRA blackout periods. 466 F. Supp. 2d, at 202. The FEC contends that the 2-year window between elections provides ample time for parties to litigate their rights before each BCRA blackout period. But groups like WRTL cannot predict what issues will be matters of public concern during a future blackout period. In these cases, WRTL had no way of knowing well in advance that it would want to run ads on judicial filibusters during the BCRA blackout period. In any event, despite BCRA’s command that the cases be expedited “to the greatest possible extent,” § 403(a)(4), 116 Stat. 113, note following 2 U. S. C. §437h (2000 ed., Supp. IV), two BCRA blackout periods have come and gone during the pendency of this action. “[A] decision allowing the desired expenditures would be an empty gesture unless it afforded appellants sufficient opportunity prior to the election date to communicate their views effectively.” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 774 (1978).
The second prong of the “capable of repetition” exception requires a “‘reasonable expectation’” or a “‘demonstrated probability ”• that “the same controversy will recur involving the same complaining party.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U. S. 478, 482 (1982) (per curiam). Our cases find the same controversy sufficiently likely to recur when a party has a reasonable expectation that it “will again be subjected to the alleged illegality,” Lyons, supra, at 109, or “will be subject to the threat of prosecution” under the challenged law, Bellotti, supra, at 774-775 (citing Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147, 149 (1975) (per curiam)). The FEC argues that in order to prove likely recurrence of the same controversy, WRTL must establish that it will run ads in the future sharing all “the characteristics that the district court deemed legally relevant.” Brief for Appellant FEC 23.
The FEC asks for too much. We have recognized that the “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ doctrine, in the context of election cases, is appropriate when there are ‘as applied’ challenges as well as in the more typical case involving only facial attacks.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 737, n. 8 (1974). Requiring repetition of every “legally relevant” characteristic of an as-applied challenge — down to the last detail — would effectively overrule this statement by making this exception unavailable for virtually all as-applied challenges. History repeats itself, but not at the level of specificity demanded by the FEC. Here, WRTL credibly claimed that it planned on running “ ‘materially similar’ ” future targeted broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within the blackout period, 466 F. Supp. 2d, at 197, and there is no reason to believe that the FEC will “refrain from prosecuting violations” of BCRA, Bellotti, supra, at 775. Under the circumstances, particularly where WRTL sought another preliminary injunction based on an ad it planned to run during the 2006 blackout period, see 466 F. Supp. 2d, at 203, n. 15, we hold that there exists a reasonable expectation that the same controversy involving the same party will recur. We have jurisdiction to decide these cases.
Ill
WRTL rightly concedes that its ads are prohibited by BCRA §203. Each ad clearly identifies Senator Feingold, who was running (unopposed) in the Wisconsin Democratic primary on September 14, 2004, and each ad would have been “targeted to the relevant electorate,” see 2 U. S. C. § 434(f)(3)(C) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), during the BCRA blackout period. WRTL further concedes that its ads do not fit under any of BCRA’s exceptions to the term “electioneering communication.” See § 434(f)(3)(B). The only question, then, is whether it is consistent with the First Amendment for BCRA § 203 to prohibit WRTL from running these three ads.
A
Appellants contend that WRTL should be required to demonstrate that BCRA is unconstitutional as applied to the ads. Reply Brief for Appellant Sen. John McCain et al. in No. 06-970, p. 5, n. 4; Brief for Appellant FEC 34. After all, appellants reason, McConnell already held that BCRA § 203 was facially valid. These cases, however, present the separate question whether §203 may constitutionally be applied to these specific ads. Because BCRA §203 burdens political speech, it is subject to strict scrutiny. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 205; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 658 (1990); MCFL, 479 U. S., at 252 (plurality opinion); Bellotti, supra, at 786; Buckley, 424 U. S., at 44-45. Under strict scrutiny, the Government must prove that applying BCRA to WRTL’s ads furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. See Bellotti, supra, at 786 (“Especially where, as here, a prohibition is directed at speech itself, and the speech is intimately related to the process of governing,... ‘the burden is on the government to show the existence of [a compelling] interest’ ” (footnote omitted)).
The strict scrutiny analysis is, of course, informed by our precedents. This Court has already ruled that BCRA survives strict scrutiny to the extent it regulates express advocacy or its functional equivalent. McConnell, supra, at 206. So to the extent the ads in these cases fit this description, the FEC’s burden is not onerous; all it need do is point to McConnell and explain why it applies here. If, on the other hand, WRTL’s ads are not express advocacy or its equivalent, the Government’s task is more formidable. It must then demonstrate that banning such ads during the blackout periods is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. No precedent of this Court has yet reached that conclusion.
B
The FEC, intervenors, and the dissent below contend that McConnell already established the constitutional test for determining if an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy: whether the ad is intended to influence elections and has that effect. See, e. g., 466 F. Supp. 2d, at 214 (opinion of Roberts, J.). Here is the relevant portion of our opinion in McConnell-.
“[P]laintiffs argue that the justifications that adequately support the regulation of express advocacy do not apply to significant quantities of speech encompassed by the definition of electioneering communications.
“This argument fails to the extent that the issue ads broadcast during the 30- and 60-day periods preceding federal primary and general elections are the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The justifications for the regulation of express advocacy apply equally to ads aired during those periods if the ads are intended to influence the voters’ decisions and have that effect.” 540 U. S., at 205-206.
WRTL and the District Court majority, on the other hand, claim that McConnell did not adopt any test as the standard for future as-applied challenges. We agree. McConnell’s analysis was grounded in the evidentiary record before the Court. Two key studies in the McConnell record constituted “the central piece of evidence marshaled by defenders of BCRA’s electioneering communication provisions in support of their constitutional validity.” McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 307, 308 (DC 2003) (opinion of Henderson, J.) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Those studies asked “student coders” to separate ads based on whether the students thought the “purpose” of the ad was “to provide information about or urge action on a bill or issue,” or “to generate support or opposition for a particular candidate.” Id., at 308-309 (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis deleted); see Brief for Appellee 38. The studies concluded “‘that BCRA’s definition of Electioneering Communications accurately captures those ads that have the purpose or effect of supporting candidates for election to office.” Ibid, (emphasis in original).
When the McConnell Court considered the possible facial overbreadth of §203, it looked to the studies in the record analyzing ads broadcast during the blackout periods, and those studies had classified the ads in terms of intent and effect. The Court’s assessment was accordingly phrased in the same terms, which the Court regarded as sufficient to conclude, on the record before it, that the plaintiffs had not “carried their heavy burden of proving” that §203 was facially overbroad and could not be enforced in any circumstances. 540 U. S., at 207. The Court did not explain that it was adopting a particular test for determining what constituted the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy. The fact that the student coders who helped develop the evidentiary record before the Court in McConnell looked to intent and effect in doing so, and that the Court dealt with the record on that basis in deciding the facial overbreadth claim, neither compels nor warrants accepting that same standard as the constitutional test for separating, in an as-applied challenge, political speech protected under the First Amendment from that which may be banned.
More importantly, this Court in Buckley had already rejected an intent-and-effeet test for distinguishing between discussions of issues and candidates. See 424 U. S., at 43-44. After noting the difficulty of distinguishing between discussion of issues on the one hand and advocacy of election or defeat of candidates on the other, the Buckley Court explained that analyzing the question in terms “‘of intent and of effect’” would afford “‘no security for free discussion.’” Id., at 43 (quoting Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 535 (1945)). It therefore rejected such an approach, and McConnell did not purport to overrule Buckley on this point— or even address what Buckley had to say on the subject.
For the reasons regarded as sufficient in Buckley, we decline to adopt a test for as-applied challenges turning on the speaker’s intent to affect an election. The test to distinguish constitutionally protected political speech from speech that BCRA may proscribe should provide a safe harbor for those who wish to exercise First Amendmént rights. The test should also “reflec[t] our ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’” Buckley, supra, at 14 (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964)). A test turning on the intent of the speaker does not remotely fit the bill.
Far from serving the values the First Amendment is meant to protect, an intent-based test would chill core political speech by opening the door to a trial on every ad within the terms of §203, on the theory that the speaker actually intended to affect an election, no matter how compelling the indications that the ad concerned a pending legislative or policy issue. No reasonable speaker would choose to run an ad covered by BCRA if its only defense to a criminal prosecution would be that its motives were pure. An intent-based standard “blankets with uncertainty whatever may be said,” and “offers no security for free discussion.” Buckley, supra, at 43 (internal quotation marks omitted). The FEC does not disagree. In its brief filed in the first appeal in this litigation, it argued that a “constitutional standard that turned on the subjective sincerity of a speaker’s message would likely be incapable of workable application; at a minimum, it would invite costly, fact-dependent litigation.” Brief for Appellee in WRTL I, O. T. 2005, No. 04-1581, p. 39.
A test focused on the speaker’s intent could lead to the bizarre result that identical ads aired at the same time could be protected speech for one speaker, while leading to criminal penalties for another. See M. Redish, Money Talks: Speech, Economic Power, and the Values of Democracy 91 (2001) (“[U]nder well-accepted First Amendment doctrine, a speaker’s motivation is entirely irrelevant to the question of constitutional protection”). “First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive.” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 433 (1963). An intent test provides none.
Buckley also explains the flaws of a test based on the actual effect speech will have on an election or on a particular segment of the target audience. Such a test “‘puts the speaker... wholly at the mercy of the varied understanding of his hearers.’ ” 424 U. S., at 43. It would also typically lead to a burdensome, expert-driven inquiry, with an indeterminate result. Litigation on such a standard may or may not accurately predict electoral effects, but it will unquestionably chill a substantial amount of political speech.
C
“The freedom of speech... guaranteed by the Constitution embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment.” Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 776 (internal quotation marks omitted). See Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y, 447 U. S. 530, 534 (1980). To safeguard this liberty, the proper standard for an as-applied challenge to BCRA § 203 must be objective, focusing on the substance of the communication rather than amorphous considerations of intent and effect. See Buckley, supra, at 43-44. It must entail minimal if any discovery, to allow parties to resolve disputes quickly without chilling speech through the threat of burdensome litigation. See Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U. S. 113, 119 (2003). And it must eschew “the open-ended rough-and-tumble of factors,” which “invit[es] complex argument in a trial court and a virtually inevitable appeal.” Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U. S. 527, 547 (1995). In short, it must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 269-270.
In light of these considerations, a court should find that an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Under this test, WRTL’s three ads are plainly not the functional equivalent of express advocacy. First, their content is consistent with that of a genuine issue ad: The ads focus on a legislative issue, take a position on the issue, exhort the public to adopt that position, and urge the public to contact public officials with respect to the matter. Second, their content lacks indicia of express advocacy: The ads do not mention an election, candidacy, political party, or challenger; and they do not take a position on a candidate’s character, qualifications, or fitness for office.
Despite these characteristics, appellants assert that the content of WRTL’s ads alone betrays their electioneering nature. Indeed, the FEC suggests that any ad covered by §203 that includes “an appeal to citizens to contact their elected representative” is the “functional equivalent” of an ad saying defeat or elect that candidate. Brief for Appellant FEC 31; see Brief for Appellant Sen. John McCain et al. in No. 06-970, pp. 21-23 (hereinafter McCain Brief). We do not agree. To take just one example, during a blackout period the House considered the proposed Universal National Service Act. See App. to Brief for American Center for Law and Justice et al. as Amici Curiae B-3. There would be no reason to regard an ad supporting or opposing that Act, and urging citizens to contact their Representative about it, as the equivalent of an ad saying vote for or against the Representative. Issue advocacy conveys information and educates. An issue ad’s impact on an election, if it exists at all, will come only after the voters hear the information and choose — uninvited by the ad — to factor it into their voting decisions.
The FEC and intervenors try to turn this difference to their advantage, citing McConnell’s statements “that the most effective campaign ads, like the most effective commercials for products..., avoid the [Buckley] magic words [expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate],” 540 U. S., at 127, and that advertisers “would seldom choose to use such words even if permitted,” id., at 193. See McCain Brief 19. An expert for the FEC in these cases relied on those observations to argue that WRTL’s ads are especially effective electioneering ads because they are “subtl[e],” focusing on issues rather than simply exhorting the electorate to vote against Senator Feingold. App. 56-57. Rephrased a bit, the argument perversely maintains that the less an issue ad resembles express advocacy, the more likely it is to be the functional equivalent of express advocacy. This “heads I win, tails you lose” approach cannot be correct. It would effectively eliminate First Amendment protection for genuine issue ads, contrary to our conclusion in WRTL I that as-applied challenges to §203 are available, and our assumption in McConnell that “the interests that justify the regulation of campaign speech might not apply to the regulation of genuine issue ads,” 540 U. S., at 206, n. 88. Under appellants’ view, there can be no such thing as a genuine issue ad during the blackout period — it is simply a very effective electioneering ad.
Looking beyond the content of WRTL’s ads, the FEC and intervenors argue that several “contextual” factors prove that the ads are the equivalent of express advocacy. First, appellants cite evidence that during the same election cycle, WRTL and its Political Action Committee (PAC) actively opposed Senator Feingold’s reelection and identified filibusters as a campaign issue. This evidence goes to WRTL’s subjective intent in running the ads, and we have already explained that WRTL’s intent is irrelevant in an as-applied challenge. Evidence of this sort is therefore beside the point, as it should be — WRTL does not forfeit its right to speak on issues simply because in other aspects of its work it also opposes candidates who are involved with those issues.
Next, the FEC and intervenors seize on the timing of WRTL’s ads. They observe that the ads were to be aired near elections but not near actual Senate votes on judicial nominees, and that WRTL did not run the ads after the elections. To the extent this evidence goes to WRTL’s subjective intent, it is again irrelevant. To the extent it nonetheless suggests that the ads should be interpreted as express advocacy, it falls short. That the ads were run close to an election is unremarkable in a challenge like this. Every ad covered by BCRA §203 will by definition air just before a primary or general election. If this were enough to prove that an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy, then BCRA would be constitutional in all of its applications. This Court unanimously rejected this contention in WRTL /.
That the ads were run shortly after the Senate had recessed is likewise unpersuasive. Members of Congress often return to their districts during recess, precisely to determine the views of their constituents; an ad run at that time may succeed in getting more constituents to contact the Representative while he or she is back home. In any event, a group can certainly choose to run an issue ad to coincide with public interest rather than a floor vote. Finally, WRTL did not resume running its ads after the BCRA blackout period because, as it explains, the debate had changed. Brief for Appellee 16. The focus of the Senate was on whether a majority would vote to change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster — not whether individual Senators would continue filibustering. Given this change, WRTL’s decision not to continue running its ads after the blackout period does not support an inference that the ads were the functional equivalent of electioneering.
The last piece of contextual evidence the FEC and intervenors highlight is the ads’ “specific and repeated cross-reference” to a Web site. Reply Brief for Appellant FEC 15. In the middle of the Web site’s homepage, in large type, were the addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses of Senators Feingold and Kohl. Wisconsinites who viewed “Wedding,” “Loan,” or ‘Waiting” and wished to contact their Senators — as the ads requested — would be able to obtain the pertinent contact information immediately upon visiting the Web site. This is fully consistent with viewing WRTL's ads as genuine issue ads. The Web site also stated both Wisconsin Senators’ positions on judicial filibusters, and allowed visitors to sign up for “e-alerts,” some of which contained exhortations to vote against Senator Feingold. These details lend the electioneering interpretation of the ads more credence, but again, WRTL’s participation in express advocacy in other aspects of its work is not a justification for censoring its issue-related speech. Any express advocacy on the Web site, already one step removed from the text of the ads themselves, certainly does not render an interpretation of the ads as genuine issue ads unreasonable.
Given the standard we have adopted for determining whether an ad is the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy, contextual factors of the sort invoked by appellants should seldom play a significant role in the inquiry. Courts need not ignore basic background information that may be necessary to put an ad in context — such as whether an ad “describes a legislative issue that is either currently the subject of legislative scrutiny or likely to be the subject of such scrutiny in the near future,” 466 F. Supp. 2d, at 207 — but the need to consider such background should not become an excuse for discovery or a broader inquiry of the sort we have just noted raises First Amendment concerns.
At best, appellants have shown what we have acknowledged at least since Buckley: that “the distinction between discussion of issues and candidates and advocacy of election or defeat of candidates may often dissolve in practical application.” 424 U. S., at 42. Under the test set forth above, that is not enough to establish that the ads can only reasonably be viewed as advocating or opposing a candidate in a federal election. “Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.” Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 102 (1940). Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.
We confronted a similar issue in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002), in which the Government argued that virtual images of child pornography were difficult to distinguish from real images. The Government’s solution was “to prohibit both kinds of images.” Id., at 254-255. We rejected the argument that “protected speech may be banned as a means to ban unprotected speech,” concluding that it “turns 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:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides that an Indian tribe may conduct certain gaming activities only in conformance with a valid compact between the tribe and the State in which the gaming activities are located. 102 Stat. 2475, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C). The Act, passed by Congress under the Indian Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, imposes upon the States a duty to negotiate in good faith with an Indian tribe toward the formation of a compact, § 2710(d)(3)(A), and authorizes a tribe to bring suit in federal court against a State in order to compel performance of that duty, § 2710(d)(7). We hold that notwithstanding Congress’ clear intent to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity, the Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress that power, and therefore § 2710(d)(7) cannot grant jurisdiction over a State that does not consent to be sued. We further hold that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), may not be used to enforce § 2710(d)(3) against a state official.
y — t
Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act m 1988 in order to provide a statutory basis for the operation and regulation of gaming by Indian tribes. See 25 U. S. C. §2702. The Act divides gaming on Indian lands into three classes — I, II, and III — and provides a different regulatory scheme for each class. Class III gaming — the type with which we are here concerned — is defined as “all forms of gaming that are not class I gaming or class II gaming,” §2703(8), and includes such things as slot machines, casino games, banking card games, dog racing, and lotteries. It is the most heavily regulated of the three classes. The Act provides that class III gaming is lawful only where it is: (1) authorized by an ordinance or resolution that (a) is adopted by the governing body of the Indian tribe, (b) satisfies certain statutorily prescribed requirements, and (c) is approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission; (2) located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity; and (3) “conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State under paragraph (3) that is in effect.” § 2710(d)(1).
The “paragraph (3)” to which the last prerequisite of § 2710(d)(1) refers is § 2710(d)(3), which describes the permissible scope of a Tribal-State compact, see § 2710(d)(3)(C), and provides that the compact is effective “only when notice of approval by the Secretary [of the Interior] of such compact has been published by the Secretary in the Federal Register,” § 2710(d)(3)(B). More significant for our purposes, however, is that § 2710(d)(3) describes the process by which a State and an Indian tribe begin negotiations toward a Tribal-State compact:
“(A) Any Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the Indian lands upon which a class III gaming activity is being conducted, or is to be conducted, shall request the State in which such lands are located to enter into negotiations for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities. Upon receiving such a request, the State shall negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith to enter into such a compact.”
The State’s obligation to “negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith” is made judicially enforceable by §§ 2710(d) (7)(A)(i) and (B)(i):
“(A) The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over—
“(i) any cause of action initiated by an Indian tribe arising from the failure of a State to enter into negotiations with the Indian tribe for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact under paragraph (3) or to conduct such negotiations in good faith....
“(B)(i) An Indian tribe may initiate a cause of action described in subparagraph (A)(i) only after the close of the 180-day period beginning on the date on which the Indian tribe requested the State to enter into negotiations under paragraph (3)(A).”
Sections 2710(d)(7)(B)(ii)-(vii) describe an elaborate remedial scheme designed to ensure the formation of a Tribal-State compact. A tribe that brings an action under § 2710(d) (7)(A)(i) must show that no Tribal-State compact has been entered and that the State failed to respond in good faith to the tribe’s request to negotiate; at that point, the burden then shifts to the State to prove that it did in fact negotiate in good faith. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(ii). If the district court concludes that the State has failed to negotiate in good faith toward the formation of a Tribal-State compact, then it “shall order the State and Indian Tribe to conclude such a compact within a 60-day period.” §2710(d)(7)(B)(iii). If no compact has been concluded 60 days after the court’s order, then “the Indian tribe and the State shall each submit to a mediator appointed by the court a proposed compact that represents their last best offer for a compact.” § 2710(d)(7) (B)(iv). The mediator chooses from between the two proposed compacts the one “which best comports with the terms of [the Act] and any other applicable Federal law and with the findings and order of the court,” ibid., and submits it to the State and the Indian tribe, § 2710(d)(7)(B)(v). If the State consents to the proposed compact within 60 days of its submission by the mediator, then the proposed compact is “treated as a Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3).” § 2710(d)(7)(B)(vi). If, however, the State does not consent within that 60-day period, then the Act provides that the mediator “shall notify the Secretary [of the Interior]” and that the Secretary “shall prescribe... procedures... under which class III gaming may be conducted on the Indian lands over which the Indian tribe has jurisdiction.” § 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii).
In September 1991, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, petitioner, sued the State of Florida and its Governor, Lawton Chiles, respondents. Invoking jurisdiction under 25 U. S. C. § 2710(d)(7)(A), as well as 28 U. S. C. §§1331 and 1362, petitioner alleged that respondents had “refused to enter into any negotiation for inclusion of [certain gaming activities] in a tribal-state compact,” thereby violating the “requirement of good faith negotiation” contained in § 2710(d)(3). Petitioner’s Complaint ¶24, see App. 18. Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the suit violated the State’s sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. The District Court denied respondents’ motion, 801 F. Supp. 655 (SD Fla. 1992), and respondents took an interlocutory appeal of that decision. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139 (1993) (collateral order doctrine allows immediate appellate review of order denying claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity).
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court, holding that the Eleventh Amendment barred petitioner’s suit against respondents. 11 F. 3d 1016 (1994). The court agreed with the District Court that Congress in § 2710(d)(7) intended to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity, and also agreed that the Act had been passed pursuant to Congress’ power under the Indian Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The court disagreed with the District Court, however, that the Indian Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, and concluded therefore that it had no jurisdiction over petitioner’s suit against Florida. The court further held that Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), does not permit an Indian tribe to force good-faith negotiations by suing the Governor of a State. Finding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the Eleventh Circuit remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss petitioner’s suit.
Petitioner sought our review of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, and we granted certiorari, 513 U. S. 1125 (1995), in order to consider two questions: (1) Does the Eleventh Amendment prevent Congress from authorizing suits by Indian tribes against States for prospective injunctive relief to enforce legislation enacted pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause?; and (2) Does the doctrine of Ex parte Young permit suits against a State’s Governor for prospective injunctive relief to enforce the good-faith bargaining requirement of the Act? We answer the first question in the affirmative, the second in the negative, and we therefore affirm the Eleventh Circuit’s dismissal of petitioner’s suit.
The Eleventh Amendment provides:
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one' of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
Although the text of the Amendment would appear to restrict only the Article III diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, “we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition... which it confirms.” Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991). That presupposition, first observed over a century ago in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), has two parts: first, that each State is a sovereign entity in our federal system; and second, that “ ‘[i]t is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent,’ ” id., at 13 (emphasis deleted), quoting The Federalist No. 81, p. 487 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). See also Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, supra, at 146 (“The Amendment is rooted in a recognition that the States, although a union, maintain certain attributes of sovereignty, including sovereign immunity”). For over a century we have reaffirmed that federal jurisdiction over suits against unconsenting States “was not contemplated by the Constitution when establishing the judicial power of the United States.” Hans, supra, at 15.
Here, petitioner has sued the State of Florida and it is undisputed that Florida has not consented to the suit. See Blatchford, supra, at 782 (States by entering into the Constitution did not consent to suit by Indian tribes). Petitioner nevertheless contends that its suit is not barred by state sovereign immunity. First, it argues that Congress through the Act abrogated the States’ sovereign immunity. Alternatively, petitioner maintains that its suit against the Governor may go forward under Ex parte Young, supra. We consider each of those arguments in turn.
II
Petitioner argues that Congress through the Act abrogated the States’ immunity from suit. In order to determine whether Congress has abrogated the States’ sovereign immunity, we ask two questions: first, whether Congress has “unequivocally expresse[d] its intent to abrogate the immunity,” Green v. Mansour, 474 U. S. 64, 68 (1985); and second, whether Congress has acted “pursuant to a valid exercise of power,” ibid.
A
Congress’ intent to abrogate the States’ immunity from suit must be obvious from “a clear legislative statement.” Blatchford, supra, at 786. This rule arises from a recognition of the important role played by the Eleventh Amendment and the broader principles that it reflects. See Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 238-239 (1985); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U. S. 332, 345 (1979). In Atas-cadero, we held that “[a] general authorization for suit in federal court is not the kind of unequivocal statutory language sufficient to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment.” 473 U. S., at 246; see also Blatchford, supra, at 786, n. 4 (“The fact that Congress grants jurisdiction to hear a claim does not suffice to show Congress has abrogated all defenses to that claim”) (emphases deleted). Rather, as we said in Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U. S. 223 (1989):
“To temper Congress’ acknowledged powers of abrogation with due concern for the Eleventh Amendment’s role as an essential component of our constitutional structure, we have applied a simple but stringent test: ‘Congress may abrogate the States’ constitutionally secured immunity from suit in federal court only by making its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.’” Id., at 227-228.
See also Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U. S. 468, 474 (1987) (plurality opinion).
Here, we agree with the parties, with the Eleventh Circuit in the decision below, 11 F. 3d, at 1024, and with virtually every other court that has confronted the question that Congress has in § 2710(d)(7) provided an “unmistakably clear” statement of its intent to abrogate. Section 2710(d)(7)(A)(i) vests jurisdiction in “[t]he United States district courts... over any cause of action.■.. arising from the failure of a State to enter into negotiations... or to conduct such negotiations in good faith.” Any conceivable doubt as to the identity of the defendant in an action under § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i) is dispelled when one looks to the various provisions of § 2710(d)(7)(B), which describe the remedial scheme available to a tribe that files suit under § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i). Section 2710(d)(7)(B)(ii)(II) provides that if a suing tribe meets its burden of proof, then the “burden of proof shall be upon the State.. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii) states that if the court “finds that the State has failed to negotiate in good faith..., the court shall order the State.. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv) provides that “the State shall... submit to a mediator appointed by the court” and subsection (B)(v) of § 2710(d)(7) states that the mediator “shall submit to the State.” Sections 2710(d) (7)(B)(vi) and (vii) also refer to the “State” in a context that makes it clear that the State is the defendant to the suit brought by an Indian tribe under § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i). In sum, we think that the numerous references to the “State” in the text of § 2710(d)(7)(B) make it indubitable that Congress intended through the Act. to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity from suit.
B
Having concluded that Congress clearly intended to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity through § 2710(d)(7), we turn now to consider whether the Act was passed “pursuant to a valid exercise of power.” Green v. Mansour, 474 U. S., at 68. Before we address that question here, however, we think it necessary first to define the scope of our inquiry.
Petitioner suggests that one consideration weighing in favor of finding the power to abrogate here is that the Act authorizes only prospective injunctive relief rather than retroactive monetary relief. But we have often made it clear that the relief sought by a plaintiff suing a State is irrelevant to the question whether the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See, e. g., Cory v. White, 457 U. S. 85, 90 (1982) (“It would be a novel proposition indeed that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit to enjoin the State itself simply because no money judgment is sought”). We think it follows a fortiori from this proposition that the type of relief sought is irrelevant to whether Congress has power to abrogate States’ immunity. The Eleventh Amendment does not exist solely in order to “preven[t] federal-court judgments that must be paid out of a State’s treasury,” Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 513 U. S. 30, 48 (1994); it also serves to avoid “the indignity of subjecting a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private parties,” Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, 506 U. S., at 146 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Similarly, petitioner argues that the abrogation power is validly exercised here because the Act grants the States a power that they would not otherwise have, viz., some measure of authority over gaming on Indian lands. It is true enough that the Act extends to the States a power withheld from them by the Constitution. See California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U. S. 202 (1987). Nevertheless, we do not see how that consideration is relevant to the question whether Congress may abrogate state sovereign immunity. The Eleventh Amendment immunity may not be lifted by Congress unilaterally deciding that it will be replaced by grant of some other authority. Cf. Atascadero, 473 U. S., at 246-247 (“[T]he mere receipt of federal funds cannot establish that a State has consented to suit in federal court”).
Thus our inquiry into whether Congress has the power to abrogate unilaterally the States’ immunity from suit is narrowly focused on one question: Was the Act in question passed pursuant to a constitutional provision granting Congress the power to abrogate? See, e. g., Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 452-456 (1976). Previously, in conducting that inquiry, we have found authority to abrogate under only two provisions of the Constitution. In Fitzpatrick, we recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment, by expanding federal power at the expense of state autonomy, had fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution. Id., at 455. We noted that § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contained prohibitions expressly directed at the States and that § 5 of the Amendment expressly provided that “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” See id., at 453 (internal quotation marks omitted). We held that through the Fourteenth Amendment, federal power extended to intrude upon the province of the Eleventh Amendment and therefore that § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment allowed Congress to abrogate the immunity from suit guaranteed by that Amendment.
In only one other case has congressional abrogation of the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity been upheld. In Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1 (1989), a plurality of the Court found that the Interstate Commerce Clause, Art. I, §8, cl. 3, granted Congress the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity, stating that the power to regulate interstate commerce would be “incomplete without the authority to render States liable in damages.” 491 U. S., at 19-20. Justice White added the fifth vote necessary to the result in that case, but wrote separately in order to express that he “[did] not agree with much of [the plurality’s] reasoning.” Id., at 57 (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).
In arguing that Congress through the Act abrogated the States’ sovereign immunity, petitioner does not challenge the Eleventh Circuit’s conclusion that the Act was passed pursuant to neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Interstate Commerce Clause. Instead, accepting the lower court’s conclusion that the Act was passed pursuant to Congress’ power under the Indian Commerce Clause, petitioner now asks us to consider whether that Clause grants Congress the power to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity.
Petitioner begins with the plurality decision in Union Gas and contends that “[t]here is no principled basis for finding that congressional power under the Indian Commerce Clause is less than that conferred by the Interstate Commerce Clause.” Brief for Petitioner 17. Noting that the Union Gas plurality found the power to abrogate from the “plenary” character of the grant of authority over interstate commerce, petitioner emphasizes that the Interstate Commerce Clause leaves the States with some power to regulate, see, e. g., West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U. S. 186 (1994), whereas the Indian Commerce Clause makes “Indian relations... the exclusive province of federal law.” County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 470 U. S. 226, 234 (1985). Contending that the Indian Commerce Clause vests the Federal Government with “the duty of protect-ting]” the tribes from “local ill feeling” and “the people of the States,” United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 383-384 (1886), petitioner argues that the abrogation power is necessary “to protect the tribes from state action denying federally guaranteed rights.” Brief for Petitioner 20.
Respondents dispute petitioner’s analogy between the Indian Commerce Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause. They note that we have recognized that “the Interstate Commerce and Indian Commerce Clauses have very different applications." Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163, 192 (1989), and from that they argue that the two provisions are “wholly dissimilar.” Brief for Respondents 21. Respondents contend that the Interstate Commerce Clause grants the power of abrogation only because Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce would be “incomplete” without that “necessary” power. Id., at 23, citing Union Gas, supra, at 19-20. The Indian Commerce Clause is distinguishable, respondents contend, because it gives Congress complete authority over the Indian tribes. Therefore, the abrogation power is not “necessary” to Congress’ exercise of its power under the Indian Commerce Clause.
Both parties make their arguments from the plurality decision in Union Gas, and we, too, begin there. We think it clear that Justice Brennan’s opinion finds Congress’ power to abrogate under the Interstate Commerce Clause from the States’ cession of their sovereignty when they gave Congress plenary power to regulate interstate commerce. See Union Gas, 491 U. S., at 17 (“The important point... is that the provision both expands federal power and contracts state power”). Respondents’ focus elsewhere is misplaced. While the plurality decision states that Congress’ power under the Interstate Commerce Clause would be incomplete without the power to abrogate, that statement is made solely in order to emphasize the broad scope of Congress’ authority over interstate commerce. Id., at 19-20. Moreover, respondents’ rationale would mean that where Congress has less authority, and the States have more, Congress’ means for exercising that power must be greater. We read the plurality opinion to provide just the opposite. Indeed, it was in those circumstances where Congress exercised complete authority that Justice Brennan thought the power to abrogate most necessary. Id., at 20 (“Since the States may not legislate at all in [the aforementioned] situations, a conclusion that Congress may not create a cause of action for money damages against the States would mean that no one could do so. And in many situations, it is only money damages that will carry out Congress’ legitimate objectives under the Commerce Clause”).
Following the rationale of the Union Gas plurality, our inquiry is limited to determining whether the Indian Commerce Clause, like the Interstate Commerce Clause, is a grant of authority to the Federal Government at the expense of the States. The answer to that question is obvious. If anything, the Indian Commerce Clause accomplishes a greater transfer of power from the States to the Federal Government than does the Interstate Commerce Clause. This is clear enough from the fact that the States still exercise some authority over interstate trade but have been divested of virtually all authority over Indian commerce and Indian tribes. Under the rationale of Union Gas, if the States’ partial cession of authority over a particular area includes cession of the immunity from suit, then their virtually total cession of authority over a different area must also include cession of the immunity from suit. See id., at 42 (Scalia, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor and Kennedy, JJ., dissenting) (“[I]f the Article I commerce power enables abrogation of state sovereign immunity, so do all the other Article I powers”); see Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma, 37 F. 3d 1422, 1428 (CA10 1994) (Indian Commerce Clause grants power to abrogate), cert. pending, No. 94-1029; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 3 F. 3d 273, 281 (CA8 1993) (same); cf. Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, 59 F. 3d 539, 546-547 (CA5 1995) (After Union Gas, Copyright Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8, must grant Congress power to abrogate). We agree with petitioner that the plurality opinion in Union Gas allows no principled distinction in favor of the States to be drawn between the Indian Commerce Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Respondents argue, however, that we need not conclude that the Indian Commerce Clause grants the power to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity. Instead, they contend that if we find the rationale of the Union Gas plurality to extend to the Indian Commerce Clause, then “Union Gas should be reconsidered and overruled.” Brief for Respondents 25. Generally, the principle of stare decisis, and the interests that it serves, viz., “the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles,... reliance on judicial decisions, and... the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process,” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827 (1991), counsel strongly against reconsideration of our precedent. Nevertheless, we always have treated stare decisis as a “principle of policy,” Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940), and not as an “inexorable command,” Payne, 501 U. S., at 828. “[W]hen governing decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned, ‘this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent.’” Id., at 827 (quoting Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, 665 (1944)). Our willingness to reconsider our earlier decisions has been “particularly true in constitutional cases, because in such cases ‘correction through legislative action is practically impossible.’” Payne, supra, at 828 (quoting Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393, 407 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)).
The Court in Union Gas reached a result without an expressed rationale agreed upon by a majority of the Court. We have already seen that Justice Brennan’s opinion received the support of only three other Justices. See Union Gas, 491 U. S., at 5 (Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined Justice Brennan). Of the other five, Justice White, who provided the fifth vote for the result, wrote separately in order to indicate his disagreement with the plurality’s rationale, id., at 57 (opinion concurring in judgment and dissenting in part), and four Justices joined together in a dissent that rejected the plurality’s rationale, id., at 35-45 (Scalia, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor and Kennedy, JJ.). Since it was issued, Union Gas has created confusion among the lower courts that have sought to understand and apply the deeply fractured decision. See, e.g., Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, supra, at 543-545 (“Justice White’s concurrence must be taken on its face to disavow” the plurality’s theory); 11 F. 3d, at 1027 (Justice White’s “vague concurrence renders the continuing validity of Union Gas in doubt”).
The plurality’s rationale also deviated sharply from our established federalism jurisprudence and essentially eviscerated our decision in Hans. See Union Gas, supra, at 36 (“If Hans means only that federal-question suits for money damages against the States cannot be brought in federal court unless Congress clearly says so, it means nothing at all”) (Scalia, J., dissenting). It was well established in 1989 when Union Gas was decided that the Eleventh Amendment stood for the constitutional principle that state sovereign immunity limited the federal courts’ jurisdiction under Article III. The text of the Amendment itself is clear enough on this point: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit....” And our decisions since Hans had been equally clear that the Eleventh Amendment reflects “the fundamental principle of sovereign immunity [that] limits the grant of judicial authority in Art. III,” Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 97-98 (1984); see Union Gas, supra, at 38 (“ ‘[T]he entire judicial power granted by the Constitution does not embrace authority to entertain a suit brought by private parties against a State without consent given...’”) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (quoting Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, 497 (1921)); see also cases cited at n. 7, supra. As the dissent in Union Gas recognized, the plurality’s conclusion — that Congress could under Article I expand the scope of the federal courts’ jurisdiction under Article III — “contradicted] our unvarying approach to Article III as setting forth the exclusive catalog of permissible federal-court jurisdiction.” Union Gas, supra, at 39.
Never before the decision in Union Gas had we suggested that the bounds of Article III could be expanded by Congress operating pursuant to any constitutional provision other than the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, it had seemed fundamental that Congress could not expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts beyond the bounds of Article III. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). The plurality’s citation of prior decisions for support was based upon what we believe to be a misreading of precedent. See Union Gas, 491 U. S., at 40-41 (Scalia, J., dissenting). The plurality claimed support for its decision from a case holding the unremarkable, and completely unrelated, proposition that the States may waive their sovereign immunity, see id., at 14-15 (citing Parden v. Terminal Railway of Ala. Docks Dept., 377 U. S. 184 (1964)), and cited as precedent propositions that had been merely assumed for the sake of argument in earlier cases, see 491 U. S., at 15 (citing Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U. S., at 475-476, and n. 5, and County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. 470 U. S., at 252).
The plurality’s extended reliance upon our decision in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976), that Congress could under the Fourteenth Amendment abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity was also, we believe, misplaced. Fitzpatrick was based upon a rationale wholly inapplicable to the Interstate Commerce Clause, viz., that the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted well after the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment and the ratification of the Constitution, operated to alter the pre-existing balance between state and federal power achieved by Article III and the Eleventh Amendment. Id., at 454. As the dissent in Union Gas made clear, Fitzpatrick cannot be read to justify “limitation of the principle embodied in the Eleventh Amendment through appeal to antecedent provisions of the Constitution.” Union Gas, supra, at 42 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In the five years since it was decided, Union Gas has proved to be a solitary departure from established law. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139 (1993). Reconsidering the decision in Union Gas, we conclude that none of the policies underlying stare decisis require our continuing adherence to its holding. The decision has, since its issuance, been of questionable precedential value, largely because a majority of the Court expressly disagreed with the rationale of the plurality. See Nichols v. United States, 511 U. S. 738, 746 (1994) (the “degree of confusion following a splintered decision... is itself a reason for reexamining that decision”). The case involved the interpretation of the Constitution and therefore may be altered only by constitutional amendment or revision by this Court. Finally, both the result in Union Gas and the plurality’s rationale depart from our established understanding of the Eleventh Amendment and undermine the accepted function of Article III. We feel bound to conclude that Union Gas was wrongly decided and that it should be, and now is, overruled.
The dissent makes no effort to defend the decision in Union Gas, see post, at 100, but nonetheless would find congressional power to abrogate in this case. Contending that our decision is a novel extension of the Eleventh Amendment, the dissent chides us for “attending]” to dicta. We adhere in this case, however, not to mere obiter dicta, but rather to the well-established rationale upon which the Court based the results of its earlier decisions. When an opinion issues for the Court, it is not only the result but also those portions of the opinion necessary to that result by which we are bound. Cf. Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U. S. 604, 613 (1990) (exclusive basis of a judgment is not dicta) (plurality); County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 668 (1989) (“As a general rule, the principle of stare decisis directs us to adhere not only to the holdings of our prior cases, but also to their explications of the governing rules of law”) (Kennedy, J., concurring and dissenting); Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U. S. 421, 490 (1986) (“Although technically dicta,... an important part of the Court’s rationale for the result that it reache[s]... is entitled to greater weight...”) (O’Connor, J., concurring). For over a century, we have grounded our decisions in the oft-repeáted understanding of state sovereign immunity as an essential part of the Eleventh Amendment. In Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313 (1934), the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred a suit brought against a State by a foreign state. Chief Justice Hughes wrote for a unanimous Court:
“[NJeither the literal sweep of the words of Clause one of § 2 of Article III, nor the absence of restriction in the letter of the Eleventh Amendment
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by these cases is what burden of proof the Government must sustain in deportation proceedings. We have concluded that it is incumbent upon the Government in such proceedings to establish the facts supporting deportability by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.
In Sherman (No. 80), the petitioner is a resident alien who entered this country from Poland in 1920 as a 14-year-old boy. In 1963 the Immigration and Naturalization Service instituted proceedings to deport him upon the ground that he had re-entered the United States in 1938, following a trip abroad, without inspection as an alien. After a hearing before a special inquiry officer, the petitioner was ordered to be deported, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal.
The Government’s evidence showed that the petitioner had obtained a passport in 1937 under the name of Samuel Levine, representing himself as a United States citizen. Someone using this passport sailed to France in June 1937, proceeded to Spain, returned to the United States in December 1938, aboard the S. S. Amonia, and was admitted without being examined as an alien. To establish that it was the petitioner who had traveled under this passport, the Government introduced the testimony of Edward Morrow, an American citizen who had fought in the Spanish Civil War. Morrow was at first unable to remember the name Samuel Levine or identify the petitioner, but eventually stated that he thought he had known the petitioner as “Sam Levine,” had seen him while fighting for the Loyalists in Spain during 1937 and 1938, and had returned with him to the United States aboard the S. S. Ausonia in December 1938. Morrow conceded that his recollection of events occurring 27 years earlier was imperfect, and admitted that his identification of the petitioner might be mistaken.
It is not clear what standard of proof the special inquiry officer and the Board of Immigration Appeals on de novo review applied in determining that it was the petitioner who had traveled to Spain and re-entered the United States under the Samuel Levine passport. At the outset of his opinion, the special inquiry officer stated that the Government must establish deportability “by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence,” without discussing what the burden of proof was. Later he concluded that the Government had established its contentions “with a solidarity far greater than required,” but did not further elucidate what was “required.” The Board of Immigration Appeals stated that it was “established beyond any reasonable doubt” that the petitioner had obtained the Samuel Levine passport, and added that this established a “presumption” that the petitioner had used it to travel abroad. The Board further stated that it was a “most unlikely hypothesis” that someone other than the petitioner had obtained and used the passport, and asserted that “the Service has borne its burden of establishing” that the petitioner was deport-able, without indicating what it considered the weight of that burden to be.
Upon petition for review, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit originally set aside the deportation order, upon the ground that the Government has the burden of proving the facts supporting deportability beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reversed itself, however, upon a rehearing en banc, holding that the Government need only prove its case with “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.” We granted certiorari, 384 U.S. 904.
In Woodby (No. 40), the petitioner is a resident alien who was born in Hungary and entered the United States from Germany in 1956 as the wife of an American soldier. Deportation proceedings were instituted against her on the ground that she had engaged in prostitution after entry. A special inquiry officer and the Board of Immigration Appeals found that she was deportable upon the ground charged.
At the administrative hearing the petitioner admitted that she had engaged in prostitution for a brief period in 1957, some months after her husband had deserted her, but claimed that her conduct was the product of circumstances amounting to duress. Without reaching the validity of the duress defense, the special inquiry officer and the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that the petitioner had continued to engage in prostitution after the alleged duress had terminated. The hearing officer and the Board did not discuss what burden of proof the Government was required to bear in establishing deportability, nor did either of them indicate the degree of certainty with which their factual conclusions were reached. The special inquiry officer merely asserted that the evidence demonstrated that the petitioner was deportable. The Board stated that the evidence made it “apparent” that the petitioner had engaged in prostitution after the alleged duress had ended, and announced that “it is concluded that the evidence establishes deportability . . . .”
In denying a petition for review, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did not explicitly deal with the issue of what burden of persuasion was imposed upon the Government at the administrative level, finding only that “the Board’s underlying order is 'supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole ....’” We granted certiorari, 384 U. S. 904.
In the prevailing opinion in the Sherman case, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that “[i]f the slate were clean,” it “might well agree that the standard of persuasion for deportation should be similar to that in denaturalization, where the Supreme Court has insisted that the evidence must be 'clear, unequivocal, and convincing’ and that the Government needs ‘more than a bare preponderance of the evidence’ to prevail. . . . But here,” the court thought, “Congress has spoken . . . .” 350 F. 2d, at 900. This view was based upon two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act which use the language “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence” in connection with deportation orders. The provisions in question are § 106 (a) (4) of the Act which states that a deportation order, “if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive,” and § 242 (b) (4) of the Act which provides inter alia that “no decision of deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.”
It seems clear, however, that these two statutory provisions are addressed not to the degree of proof required at the administrative level in deportation proceedings, but to quite a different subject — the scope of judicial review. The elementary but crucial difference between burden of proof and scope of review is, of course, a commonplace in the law. The difference is most graphically illustrated in a criminal case. There the prosecution is generally required to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. But if the correct burden of proof was imposed at the trial, judicial review is generally limited to ascertaining whether the evidence relied upon by the trier of fact was of sufficient quality and substantiality to support the rationality of the judgment. In other words, an appellate court in a criminal case ordinarily does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the judgment is supported by substantial evidence.
That § 106 (a) (4) relates exclusively to judicial review is made abundantly clear by its language, its context, and its legislative history. Section 106 was added to the Act in 1961 in order “to create a single, separate, statutory form of judicial review of administrative orders for the deportation and exclusion of aliens from the United States.” The section is entitled “Judicial Review of Orders of Deportation and Exclusion,” and by its terms provides “the sole and exclusive procedure for” the “judicial review of all final orders of deportation.” Subsection 106 (a)(4) is a specific directive to the courts in which petitions for review are filed.
It is hardly less clear that the other provision upon which the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit relied, §242 (b)(4) of the Act, is also addressed to reviewing courts, and, insofar as it represents a yardstick for the administrative factfinder, goes, not to the burden of proof, but rather to the quality and nature of the evidence upon which a deportation order must be based. The provision declares that “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence” shall be the measure of whether a deportability decision is “valid” — a word that implies scrutiny by a reviewing tribunal of a decision already reached by the trier of the facts. The location of this provision in a section containing provisions dealing with procedures before the special inquiry officer has little significance when it is remembered that the original 1952 Act did not itself contain a framework for judicial review — although such review was, of course, available by habeas corpus or otherwise. See Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U. S. 302. And whatever ambiguity might be thought to lie in the location of this section is resolved by its legislative history. The Senate Report explained § 242 (b)(4) as follows: “The requirement that the decision of the special inquiry officer shall be based on reasonable, substantial and probative evidence means that, where the decision rests upon evidence of such a nature that it cannot be said that a reasonable person might not have reached the conclusion which was reached, the case may not be reversed because the judgment of the appellate body differs from that of the administrative body.”
We conclude, therefore, that Congress has not addressed itself to the question of what degree of proof is required in deportation proceedings. It is the kind of question which has traditionally been left to the judiciary to resolve, and its resolution is necessary in the interest of the evenhanded administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The petitioners urge that the appropriate burden of proof in deportation proceedings should be that which the law imposes in criminal cases — the duty of proving the essential facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government, on the other hand, points out that a deportation proceeding is not a criminal case, and that the appropriate burden of proof should consequently be the one generally imposed in civil cases and administrative proceedings — the duty of prevailing by a mere preponderance of the evidence.
To be sure, a deportation proceeding is not a criminal prosecution. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580. But it does not syllogistically follow that a person may be banished from this country upon no higher degree of proof than applies in a negligence case. This Court has not closed its eyes to the drastic deprivations that may follow when a resident of this country is compelled by our Government to forsake all the bonds formed here and go to a foreign land where he often has no contemporary identification. In words apposite to the question before us, we have spoken of “the solidity of proof that is required for a judgment entailing the consequences of deportation, particularly in the case of an old man who has lived in this country for forty years . . . .” Rowoldt v. Perfetto, 355 U. S. 115, 120.
In denaturalization cases the Court has required the Government to establish its allegations by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. The same burden has been imposed in expatriation cases. That standard of proof is no stranger to the civil law.
No less a burden of proof is appropriate in deportation proceedings. The immediate hardship of deportation is often greater than that inflicted by denaturalization, which does not, immediately at least, result in expulsion from our shores. And many resident aliens have lived in this country longer and established stronger family, social, and economic ties here than some who have become naturalized citizens.
We hold that no deportation order may be entered unless it is found by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true. Accordingly, in each of the cases before us, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is set aside, and the case is remanded with directions to remand to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for such further proceedings as, consistent with this opinion, may be deemed appropriate.
It is so ordered.
Section 241 (a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 204, 8 U. S. C. § 1251 (a)(2), provides for deportation of any alien who “entered the United States without inspection or at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General ...” Prior to 1952, the Government was required to bring deportation proceedings within five years of an alleged illegal entry, 39 Stat. 889 (1917), as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 155 (a) (1946 ed.). Thus, under the prior law, the petitioner would not have been subject to deportation proceedings commenced after 1943. However, this time limit was retroactively eliminated by the 1952 Act, §241 (d), 66 Stat. 208, 8 U. S. C. §1251 (d). See Developments in the Law, Immigration and Nationality, 66 Harv. L. Rev. 643, 683-684.
In conformity with its usual practice, the Board made its own independent determination of the factual issues after de novo examination of the record. See Gordon & Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure 46-47 (1959).
350 F. 2d 894.
350 F. 2d, at 901. The. court adopted the reasoning of the opinion which Judge Friendly had filed as a dissent to the original decision. Judges Waterman and Smith, who had formed the original majority, dissented.
Section 241 (a) (12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 207, 8 U. S. C. § 1251 (a) (12), provides for the deportation of any alien who “by reason of any conduct, behavior or activity at any time after entry became a member of any of the classes specified in paragraph (12) of section 212 (a) . . . .” Among the classes specified in §212 (a) (12) of the Act, 66 Stat. 182, 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (a) (12), are “Aliens who are prostitutes or who have engaged in prostitution. . . .”
75 Stat. 651 (1961), 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (a)(4).
66 Stat. 210 (1952), 8 U. S. C. § 1252 (b) (4).
See Jaffe, Administrative Law: Burden of Proof and Scope of Review, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 914 (1966); Comment, 41 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 622 (1966); Standard of Proof in Deportation Proceedings, 18 Stan. L. Rev. 1237 (1966).
See McCormick, Evidence 681-685 (1954); 9 Wigmore, Evidence §2497 (3d ed. 1940).
E. g., Rutkin v. United States, 343 U. S. 130, 135. For discussion of variations of and alternatives to the usual rule, see Goldstein, The State and the Accused: Balance of Advantage in Criminal Procedure, 69 Yale L. J. 1149, 1157-1163 (1960).
H. R. Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 22.
“Judicial Review of Orders of Deportation and Exclusion
“Sec. 106. (a) The procedure prescribed by, and all the provisions of the Act of December 29, 1950, as amended (64 Stat. 1129; 68 Stat. 961; 5 U. S. C. 1031 et seq.), shall apply to, and shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for, the judicial review of all final orders of deportation . . . except that—
“(4) . . . the petition shall be determined solely upon the administrative record upon which the deportation order is based and the Attorney General’s findings of fact, if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive . . . .” 75 Stat. 651 (1961), 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (a).
This has been recognized by the Board of Immigration Appeals itself:
“Finally, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the burden of proof and the quality of the evidence which is required to establish that burden successfully. It is to be noted that subsection (b)(4) of section 242 of the act does not speak of the burden of proof but of the quality of the evidence which the Service must produce before deportability can validly be found. . . .” Matter of V—, 7 I. & N. Dec. 460, 463.
S. Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 30. The House Report contains substantially identical language. H. R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 57.
See McBaine, Burden of Proof: Degrees of Belief, 32 Calif. L. Rev. 242 (1944). See also 9 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2488-2493, 2497-2498 (3d ed. 1940).
Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665; Nowak v. United States, 356 U. S. 660; Chaunt v. United States, 364 U. S. 350.
Gonzales v. Landon, 350 U. S. 920; Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 129. But see § 349 (c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 75 Stat. 656 (1961), 8 U. S. C. § 1481 (c).
This standard, or an even higher one, has traditionally been imposed in cases involving allegations of civil fraud, and in a variety of other kinds of civil cases involving such issues as adultery, illegitimacy of a child bom in wedlock, lost wills, oral contracts to make bequests, and the like. See 9 Wigmore, Evidence § 2498 (3d ed. 1940).
This standard of proof applies to all deportation cases, regardless of the length of time the alien has resided in this country. It is perhaps worth pointing out, however, that, as a practical matter, the more recent the alleged events supporting deportability, the more readily the Government will generally be able to prove its allegations by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.
Section 106 (a)(1) of the Act, 75 Stat. 651 (1961), 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (a)(1), provides that a petition for judicial review must be filed with the Court of Appeals not later than six months after a final order of deportation. In No. 40, Woodby, the petitioner’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was dismissed on March 8, 1963, and a motion for reconsideration was denied on May 27, 1963. Petition for review by the Court of Appeals was filed more than six months after the Board upheld the deportation order, but within six months after the denial of the motion to reconsider. The Court of Appeals did not pass on the question whether, in such circumstances, its power of review was limited to consideration whether the denial of the motion for reconsideration was an abuse of discretion, or whether it might also assess in full the validity of the deportation order. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in similar circumstances, that it had authority to undertake full review of the deportation order, as well as the denial of the motion to reconsider. Bregman v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 351 F. 2d 401. In light of the Bregman decision, the Government before this Court expressly abandoned its contention that in this case the courts are limited to reviewing the denial of the motion to reconsider. See the Government’s brief in No. 40, Woodby, p. 8, n. 3.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
The United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines establish ranges of criminal sentences for federal offenses and offenders. A district court must impose a sentence within the applicable Guideline range, if it finds the case to be a typical one. See 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a). District courts may depart from the Guideline range in certain circumstances, however, see ibid., and here the District Court departed downward eight levels. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the District Court’s departure rulings, and, over the published objection of nine of its judges, declined to rehear the case en banc. In this suit we explore the appropriate standards of appellate review of a district court’s decision to depart from the Guidelines..
I
A
The petitioners’ guilt has been established, and we are concerned here only with the sentencing determinations made by the District Court and Court of Appeals. A sentencing court’s departure decisions are based on the facts of the case, however, so we must set forth the details of the crime at some length.
On the evening of March 2, 1991, Rodney King and two of his friends sat in King’s wife’s car in Altadena, California, a city in Los Angeles County, and drank malt liquor for a number of hours. Then, with King driving, they left Altadena via a major freeway. King was intoxicated.
California Highway Patrol officers observed King’s car traveling at a speed they estimated to be in excess of 100 m.p.h. The officers followed Kang with red lights and sirens activated and ordered him by loudspeaker to pull over, but he continued to drive. The Highway Patrol officers called on the radio for help. Units of the Los Angeles Police Department joined in the pursuit, one of them manned by petitioner Laurence Powell and his trainee, Timothy Wind.
King left the freeway, and after a chase of about eight miles, stopped at an entrance to a recreation area. The officers ordered King and his two passengers to exit the car and to assume a felony prone position — that is, to lie on their stomachs with legs spread and arms behind their backs. King’s two friends complied. King, too, got out of the car but did not lie down. Petitioner Stacey Koon arrived, at once followed by Ted Briseno and Roland Solano. All were officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, and as sergeant, Koon took charge. The officers again ordered King to assume the felony prone position. King got on his hands and knees but did not lie down. Officers Powell, Wind, Bri-seno and Solano tried to force King down, but King resisted and became combative, so the officers retreated. Koon then fired taser darts (designed to stun a combative suspect) into King.
The events that occurred next were captured on videotape by a bystander. As the videotape begins, it shows that King rose from the ground and charged toward Officer Powell. Powell took a step and used his baton to strike King on the side of his head. King fell to the ground. From the 18th to the 30th second on the videotape, King attempted to rise, but Powell and Wind each struck him with their batons to prevent him from doing so. From the 35th to the 51st second, Powell administered repeated blows to King’s lower extremities; one of the blows fractured King’s leg. At the 55th second, Powell struck King on the chest, and King rolled over and lay prone. At that point, the officers stepped back and observed King for about 10 seconds. Powell began to reach for his handcuffs. (At the sentencing phase, the District Court found that Powell no longer perceived King to be a threat at this point.)
At one-minute-five-seconds (1:05) on the videotape, Bri-seno, in the District Court’s words, “stomped” on King’s upper back or neck. King’s body writhed in response. At 1:07, Powell and Wind again began to strike King with a series of baton blows, and Wind kicked him in the upper thoracic or cervical area six times until 1:26. At about 1:29, King put his hands behind his back and was handcuffed. Where the baton blows fell and the intentions of King and the officers at various points were contested at trial, but, as noted, petitioners’ guilt has been established.
Powell radioed for an ambulance. He sent two messages over a communications network to the other officers that said “‘ooops’” and ‘“I havent [sic] beaten anyone this bad in a long time.’” 34 F. 3d 1416, 1425 (CA9 1994). Koon sent a message to the police station that said: “ ‘U[nit] just had a big time use of force.... Tased and beat the suspect of CHP pursuit big time.’ ” Ibid.
King was taken to a hospital where he was treated for a fractured leg, multiple facial fractures, and numerous bruises and contusions. Learning that King worked at Dodger Stadium, Powell said to King: “ ‘We played a little ball tonight, didn’t we Rodney?... You know, we played a little ball, we played a little hardball tonight, we hit quite a few home runs.... Yes, we played a little ball and you lost and we won.’ ” Ibid.
B
Koon, Powell, Briseno, and Wind were tried in state court on charges of assault with a deadly weapon and excessive use of force by a police officer. The officers were acquitted of all charges, with the exception of one assault charge against Powell that resulted in a hung jury. The verdicts touched off widespread rioting in Los Angeles. More than 40 people were killed in the riots, more than 2,000 were injured, and nearly $1 billion in property was destroyed. New Initiatives for a New Los Angeles: Final Report and Recommendations, Senate Special Task Force on a New Los Angeles, Dec. 9, 1992, pp. 10-11.
On August 4, 1992, a federal grand jury indicted the four officers under 18 U. S. C. § 242, charging them with violating King’s constitutional rights under color of law. Powell, Bri-seno, and Wind were charged with willful use of unreasonable force in arresting King. Koon was charged with willfully permitting the other officers to use unreasonable force during the arrest. After a trial in United States District Court for the Central District of California, the jury convicted Koon and Powell but acquitted Wind and Briseno.
We now consider the District Court’s sentencing determinations. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a district court identifies the base offense level assigned to the crime in question, adjusts the level as the Guidelines instruct, and determines the defendant’s criminal history category. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 1B1.1 (Nov. 1992) (1992 USSG). Coordinating the adjusted offense level and criminal history category yields the appropriate sentencing range. Ibid.
The District Court sentenced petitioners pursuant to 1992 USSG §2H1.4, which applies to violations of 18 U. S. C. §242. Section 2H1.4 prescribes a base offense level which is the greater of the following: 10, or 6 plus the offense level applicable to any underlying offense. The District Court found the underlying offense was aggravated assault, which carries a base offense level of 15, 1992 USSG §2A2.2(a), to which 6 was added for a total of 21.
The court increased the offense level by four because petitioners had used dangerous weapons, § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B). The Government asked the court also to add four levels for King’s serious bodily injury pursuant to § 2A2.2(b)(3)(B). The court found, however, that King’s serious injuries were sustained when the officers were using lawful force. (At trial, the Government contended that all the blows administered after King fell to the ground 30 seconds into the videotape violated § 242. The District Court found that many of those blows “may have been tortious,” but that the criminal violations did not commence until 1:07 on the videotape, after Briseno stomped King. 833 F. Supp. 769, 778 (CD Cal. 1993).) The court did add two levels for bodily injury pursuant to § 2A2.2(b)(3)(A). The adjusted offense level totaled 27, and because neither petitioner had a criminal record, each fell within criminal history category I. The sentencing range for an offense level of 27 and a criminal history category I was, under the 1992 Guidelines, 70-to-87 months’ imprisonment. Rather than sentencing petitioners to a term within the Guideline range, however, the District Court departed downward eight levels. The departure determinations are the subject of this controversy.
The court granted a five-level departure because “the victim’s wrongful conduct contributed significantly to provoking the offense behavior,” §5K2.10, p. s. 833 F. Supp., at 787. The court also granted a three-level departure, based on a combination of four factors. First, as a result, of the “widespread publicity and emotional outrage which have surrounded this case,” petitioners were “particularly likely to be targets of abuse” in prison. Id., at 788. Second, petitioners would face job-termination proceedings, after which they would lose their positions as police officers, be disqualified from prospective employment in the field of law enforcement, and suffer the “anguish and disgrace these deprivations entail.” Id., at 789. Third, petitioners had been “significantly burden[ed]” by having been subjected to successive state and federal prosecutions. Id., at 790. Fourth, petitioners were not “violent, dangerous, or likely to engage in future criminal conduct,” so there was “no reason to impose a sentence that reflects a need to protect the public from [them].” Ibid. The court concluded these factors justified a departure when taken together, although none would have been sufficient standing alone. Id., at 786.
The departures yielded an offense level of 19 and a sentencing range of 30-to-37 months’ imprisonment. The court sentenced each petitioner to 30 months’ imprisonment. The petitioners appealed their convictions, and the Government appealed the sentences, arguing that the District Court erred in granting the downward departures and in failing to adjust the offense level upward for serious bodily injury. The Court of Appeals affirmed petitioners’ convictions, and affirmed the District Court’s refusal to adjust the offense level, but it reversed the District Court's departure determinations. Only the last ruling is before us.
The Court of Appeals reviewed “de novo whether the district court had authority to depart.” 34 F. 3d, at 1451. The court reversed the five-level departure for victim misconduct, reasoning that misbehavior by suspects is typical in cases involving excessive use of force by police and is thus comprehended by the applicable Guideline. Id., at 1460.
As for the three-level departure, the court rejected each factor cited. Acknowledging that a departure for susceptibility to abuse in prison may be appropriate in some instances and that police officers as a group are susceptible to prison abuse, the court nevertheless said the factor did not justify departure because “reliance solely on hostility toward a group of which the defendant is a member provides an unlimited open-ended rationale for departing.” Id., at 1455. The court further noted that, unlike cases in which a defendant is vulnerable to prison abuse due to physical characteristics over which he has no control, here the petitioners’ vulnerability stemmed from public condemnation of their crimes. Id., at 1456.
As for petitioners’ collateral employment consequences, the court first held consideration of the factor by the trial court inconsistent with the sentencing goals of 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a) because the factor did not “speak to the offender’s character, the nature or seriousness of the offense, or some other legitimate sentencing concern.” 34 F. 3d, at 1453. The court noted further that because the societal consequences of a criminal conviction are almost unlimited, reliance on them “would create a system of sentencing that would be boundless in the moral, social, and psychological examinations it required courts to make.” Id., at 1454. Third, the court noted the ease of using the factor to justify departures based on a defendant’s socioeconomic status, a consideration that, under 1992 USSG §5H1.10, is never a permitted basis for departure. As a final point, the Court of Appeals said the factor was “troubling” because petitioners, as police officers, held positions of trust they had abused. Section 3B1.3 of the Guidelines increases, rather than decreases, punishment for those who abuse positions of trust. 34 F. 3d, at 1454.
The Court of Appeals next found the successive state and federal prosecutions could not be a downward departure factor. It deemed the factor irrelevant to the sentencing goals of § 3553(a)(2) and contradictory to the Attorney General’s determination that compelling federal interests warranted a second prosecution. Id,., at 1457. The court rejected the last departure factor as well, ruling that low risk of recidivism was comprehended in the criminal history category and so should not be double counted. Id., at 1456-1457.
We granted certiorari to determine the standard of review governing appeals from a district court’s decision to depart from the sentencing ranges in the Guidelines. 515 U. S. 1190 (1995). The appellate court should not review the departure decision de novo, but instead should ask whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. Having invoked the wrong standard, the Court of Appeals erred further in rejecting certain of the downward departure factors relied upon by the District Judge.
II
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, as amended, 18 U.S.C. §3551 et seq., 28 U. S. C. §§991-998, made far-reaching changes in federal sentencing. Before the Act, sentencing judges enjoyed broad discretion in determining whether and how long an offender should be incarcerated. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 363 (1989). The discretion led to perceptions that "federal judges mete out an unjustifiably wide range of sentences to offenders with similar histories, convicted of similar crimes, committed under similar circumstances.” S. Rep. No. 98-225, p. 38 (1983). In response, Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission and charged it with developing a comprehensive set of sentencing guidelines, 28 U. S. C. § 994. The Commission promulgated the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which “specify an appropriate [sentencing range] for each class of convicted persons” based on various factors related to the offense and the offender. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual ch. 1, pt. A, p. 1 (Nov. 1995) (1995 USSG). A district judge now must impose on a defendant a sentence falling within the range of the applicable Guideline, if the case is an ordinary one.
The Act did not eliminate all of the district court’s discretion, however. Acknowledging the wisdom, even the necessity, of sentencing procedures that take into account individual circumstances, see 28 U. S. C. § 991(b)(1)(B), Congress allows district courts to depart from the applicable Guideline range if “the court finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described.” 18 U. S. C. § 3553(b). To determine whether a circumstance was adequately taken into consideration by the Commission, Congress instructed courts to “consider only the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and official commentary of the Sentencing Commission.” Ibid.
Turning our attention, as instructed, to the Guidelines Manual, we learn that the Commission did not adequately take into account cases that are, for one reason or another, “unusual.” 1995 USSG ch. 1, pt. A, intro, comment. 4(b). The Introduction to the Guidelines explains:
“The Commission intends the sentencing courts to treat each guideline as carving out a ‘heartland,’ a set of typical cases embodying the conduct that each guideline describes. When a court finds an atypical case, one to which a particular guideline linguistically applies but where conduct significantly differs from the norm, the court may consider whether a departure is warranted.” Ibid.
The Commission lists certain factors that never can be bases for departure (race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, socioeconomic status, 1995 USSG §5H1.10; lack of guidance as a youth, §5H1.12; drug or alcohol dependence, §5H1.4; and economic hardship, §5K2.12), but then states that with the exception of those listed factors, it “does not intend to limit the kinds of factors, whether or not mentioned anywhere else in the guidelines, that could constitute grounds for departure in an unusual case.” 1995 USSG ch. 1, pt. A, intro, comment. 4(b). The Commission gives two reasons for its approach:
“First, it is difficult to prescribe a single set of guidelines that encompasses the vast range of human conduct potentially relevant to a sentencing decision. The Commission also recognizes that the initial set of guidelines need not do so. The Commission is a permanent body, empowered by law to write and rewrite guidelines, with progressive changes, over many years. By monitoring when courts depart from the guidelines and by analyzing their stated reasons for doing so and court decisions with references thereto, the Commission, over time, will be able to refine the guidelines to specify more precisely when departures should and should not be permitted.
“Second, the Commission believes that despite the courts’ legal freedom to depart from the guidelines, they will not do so very often. This is because the guidelines, offense by offense, seek to take account of those factors that the Commission’s data indicate made a significant difference in pre-guidelines sentencing practice.” Ibid.
So the Act authorizes district courts to depart in cases that feature aggravating or mitigating circumstances of a kind or degree not adequately taken into consideration by the Commission. The Commission, in turn, says it has formulated each Guideline to apply to a heartland of typical cases. Atypical cases were not “adequately taken into consideration,” and factors that may make a case atypical provide potential bases for departure. Potential departure factors “cannot, by their very nature, be comprehensively listed and analyzed in advance,” 1995 USSG §5K2.0, of course. Faced with this reality, the Commission chose to prohibit consideration of only a few factors, and not otherwise to limit, as a categorical matter, the considerations that might bear upon the decision to depart.
Sentencing courts are not left adrift, however. The Commission provides considerable guidance as to the factors that are apt or not apt to make a case atypical, by listing certain factors as either encouraged or discouraged bases for departure. Encouraged factors are those “the Commission has not been able to take into account fully in formulating the guidelines.” §5K2.0. Victim provocation, a factor relied upon by the District Court in this suit, is an example of an encouraged downward departure factor, §5K2.10, whereas disruption of a governmental function is an example of an encouraged upward departure factor, § 5K2.7. Even an encouraged factor is not always an appropriate basis for departure, for on some occasions the applicable Guideline will have taken the encouraged factor into account. For instance, a departure for disruption of a governmental function “ordinarily would not be justified when the offense of conviction is an offense such as bribery or obstruction of justice; in such cases interference with a governmental function is inherent in the offense.” Ibid. A court still may depart on the basis of such a factor but only if it “is present to a degree substantially in excess of that which ordinarily is involved in the offense.” §5K2.0.
Discouraged factors, by contrast, are those “not ordinarily relevant to the determination of whether a sentence should be outside the applicable guideline range.” 1995 USSG ch. 5, pt. H, intro, comment. Examples include the defendant’s family ties and responsibilities, 1995 USSG §5H1.6, his or her education and vocational skills, § 5H1.2, and his or her military, civic, charitable, or public service record, §5H1.11. The Commission does not view discouraged factors “as necessarily inappropriate” bases for departure but says they should be relied upon only “in exceptional cases.” 1995 USSG ch. 5, pt. H, intro, comment.
The Commission’s treatment of departure factors led then-Chief Judge Breyer to explain that a sentencing court considering a departure should ask the following questions:
“1) What features of this case, potentially, take it outside the Guidelines’ ‘heartland’ and make of it a special, or unusual, case?
“2) Has the Commission forbidden departures based on those features?
“3) If not, has the Commission encouraged departures based on those features?
“4) If not, has the Commission discouraged departures based on those features?” United States v. Rivera, 994 F. 2d 942, 949 (CA1 1993).
We agree with this summary. If the special factor is a forbidden factor, the sentencing court cannot use it as a basis for departure. If the special factor is an encouraged factor, the court is authorized to depart if the applicable Guideline does not already take it into account. If the special factor is a discouraged factor, or an encouraged factor already taken into account by the applicable Guideline, the court should depart only if the factor is present to an exceptional degree or in some other way makes the case different from the ordinary case where the factor is present. Cf. ibid. If a factor is unmentioned in the Guidelines, the court must, after considering the “structure and theory of both relevant individual guidelines and the Guidelines taken as a whole,” ibid., decide whether it is sufficient to take the case out of the Guideline’s heartland. The court must bear in mind the Commission’s expectation that departures based on grounds not mentioned in the Guidelines will be “highly infrequent.” 1995 USSG ch. 1, pt. A, p. 6.
Against this background, we consider the standard of review.
Ill
Before the Guidelines system, a federal criminal sentence within statutory limits was, for all practical purposes, not reviewable on appeal. Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U. S. 424, 431 (1974) (reiterating “the general proposition that once it is determined that a sentence is within the limitations set forth in the statute under which it is imposed, appellate review is at an end”); United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443, 447 (1972) (same). The Act altered this scheme in favor of a limited appellate jurisdiction to review federal sentences. 18 U. S. C. § 3742. Among other things, it allows a defendant to appeal an upward departure and the Government to appeal a downward one. §§ 3742(a), (b).
That much is clear. Less clear is the standard of review on appeal. The Government advocates de novo review, saying that, like the Guidelines themselves, appellate review of sentencing, and in particular of departure decisions, was intended to reduce unjustified disparities in sentencing. In its view, de novo review of departure decisions is necessary “to protect against unwarranted disparities arising from the differing sentencing approaches of individual district judges.” Brief for United States 12.
We agree that Congress was concerned about sentencing disparities, but we are just as convinced that Congress did not intend, by establishing limited appellate review, to vest in appellate courts wide-ranging authority over district court sentencing decisions. Indeed, the text of § 3742 manifests an intent that district courts retain much of their traditional sentencing discretion. Section 3742(e)(4), as enacted in 1984, provided “[t]he court of appeals shall give due regard to the opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and shall accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous.” In 1988, Congress amended the statute to impose the additional requirement that courts of appeals “give due deference to the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts.” Examining § 3742 in Williams v. United States, 503 U. S. 193 (1992), we stated as follows:
“Although the Act established a limited appellate review of sentencing decisions, it did not alter a court of appeals’ traditional deference to a district court’s exercise of its sentencing discretion.... The development of the guideline sentencing regime has not changed our view that, except to the extent specifically directed by statute, fit is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence.’ ” Id., at 205 (quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 290, n. 16 (1983)).
See also S. Rep. No. 225, at 150 (“The sentencing provisions of the reported bill are designed to preserve the concept that the discretion of a sentencing judge has a proper place in sentencing and should not be displaced by the discretion of an appellate court”).
That the district court retains much of its traditional discretion does not mean appellate review is an empty exercise. Congress directed courts of appeals to “give due deference to the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts.” 18 U. S. C. § 3742(e)(4). The deference that is due depends on the nature of the question presented. The district court may be owed no deference, for instance, when the claim on appeal is that it made some sort of mathematical error in applying the Guidelines; under these circumstances, the appellate court will be in as good a position to consider the question as the district court was in the first instance.
A district court’s decision to depart from the Guidelines, by contrast, will in most cases be due substantial deference, for it embodies the traditional exercise of discretion by a sentencing court. See Mistretta, 488 U. S., at 367 (noting that although the Act makes the Guidelines binding on sentencing courts, “it preserves for the judge the discretion to depart from the guideline applicable to a particular case”). Before a departure is permitted, certain aspects of the case must be found unusual enough for it to fall outside the heartland of cases in the Guideline. To resolve this question, the district court must make a refined assessment of the many facts bearing on the outcome, informed by its vantage point and day-to-day experience in criminal sentencing. Whether a given factor is present to a degree not adequately considered by the Commission, or whether a discouraged factor nonetheless justifies departure because it is present in some unusual or exceptional way, are matters determined in large part by comparison with the facts of other Guidelines cases. District courts have an institutional advantage over appellate courts in making these sorts of determinations, especially as they see so many more Guidelines cases than appellate courts do. In 1994, for example, 93.9% of Guidelines cases were not appealed. Letter from Pamela G. Montgomery, Deputy General Counsel, United States Sentencing Commission (Mar. 29,1996). “To ignore the district court’s special competence — about the ‘ordinariness’ or ‘unusualness’ of a particular case — would risk depriving the Sentencing Commission of an important source of information, namely, the reactions of the trial judge to the fact-specific circumstances of the case....” Rivera, 994 F. 2d, at 951.
Considerations like these persuaded us to adopt the abuse-of-discretion standard in Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U. S. 384 (1990), which involved review of a District Court’s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions, and in Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552 (1988), which involved review of a District Court’s determination under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d), that the position of the United States was “substantially justified,” thereby precluding an award of attorney’s fees against the Government. There, as here, we noted that deference was owed to the “ ‘judicial actor... better positioned than another to decide the issue in question.’ ” Pierce, supra, at 559-560 (quoting Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 114 (1985)); Cooter & Gell, supra, at 403. Furthermore, we adopted deferential review to afford “the district court the necessary flexibility to resolve questions involving ‘multifarious, fleeting, special, narrow facts that utterly resist generalization.’” 496 U. S., at 404 (quoting Pierce, supra, at 561-562). Like the questions involved in those cases, a district court’s departure decision involves “the consideration of unique factors that are ‘little susceptible... of useful generalization,’ ” 496 U. S., at 404, and as a consequence, de novo review is “unlikely to establish clear guidelines for lower courts,” id., at 405.
The Government seeks to avoid the factual nature of the departure inquiry by describing it at a higher level of generality linked closely to questions of law. The relevant question, however, is not, as the Government says, “whether a particular factor is within the ‘heartland’ ” as a general proposition, Brief for United States 28, but whether the particular factor is within the heartland given all the facts of the case. For example, it does not advance the analysis much to determine that a victim’s misconduct might justify a departure in some aggravated assault cases. What the district court must determine is whether the misconduct that occurred in the particular instance suffices to make the case atypical. The answer is apt to vary depending on, for instance, the severity of the misconduct, its timing, and the disruption it causes. These considerations are factual matters.
This does not mean that district courts do not confront questions of law in deciding whether to depart. In the present suit, for example, the Government argues that the District Court relied on factors that may not be considered in any case. The Government is quite correct that whether a factor is a permissible basis for departure under any circumstances is a question of law, and the court of appeals need not defer to the district court’s resolution of the point. Little turns, however, on whether we label review of this particular question abuse of discretion or de novo, for an abuse-of-discretion standard does not mean a mistake of law is beyond appellate correction. Cooter & Gell, supra, at 402. A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law. 496 U. S., at 405. That a departure decision, in an occasional case, may call for a legal determination does not mean, as a consequence, that parts of the review must be labeled de novo while other parts are labeled an abuse of discretion. See id., at 403 (court of appeals should “appl[y] a unitary abuse-of-discretion standard”). The abuse-of-discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.
IV
The principles we have explained require us to reverse the rulings of the Court of Appeals in significant part.
A
The District Court departed downward five levels because King’s “wrongful conduct contributed significantly to provoking the offense behavior.” 833 F. Supp., at 786. Victim misconduct was an encouraged basis for departure under the 1992 Guidelines and is so now. 1992 USSG §5K2.10; 1995 USSG §5K2.10.
Most Guidelines prescribe punishment for a single discrete statutory offense or a few similar statutory offenses with rather predictable fact patterns. Petitioners were convicted of violating 18 U. S. C. § 242, however, a statute unusual for its application in so many varied circumstances. It prohibits, among other things, subjecting any person under color of law “to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” A violation of §242 can arise in a myriad of forms, and the Guideline applicable to the statute applies to any violation of §242 regardless of the form it takes. 1992 USSG §2H 1.4. Section 2H1.4 takes account of the different kinds of conduct that might constitute a § 242 violation by instructing courts to use as a base offense level the greater of 10, or 6 plus the offense level applicable to any underlying offense. In this way, §2H1.4 incorporates the base offense level of the underlying offense; as a consequence, the heartland of §2H1.4 will vary depending on the defendant’s conduct.
Here, the underlying offense was aggravated assault. After adjusting the offense level for use of a dangerous weapon and bodily injury, see 1992 USSG § lB1.5(a) (a Guideline that incorporates another Guideline incorporates as well the other’s specific offense characteristics), the District Court added six levels as required by §2H1.4. Section 2H1.4 adds the six levels to account for the fact that the offense was committed “under actual or purported legal authority,” commentary to §2H1.4, and that “the harm involved both the underlying conduct and activity intended to deprive a person of his civil rights,” ibid, (incorporating introductory commentary to §2H1.1).
The District Court’s analysis of this departure factor showed a correct understanding in applying §2H1.4 as a mechanical matter and in interpreting its heartland. After summarizing King’s misconduct- — his driving while intoxicated, fleeing from the police, refusing to obey the officers’ commands, attempting to escape from police custody, etc.— the District Court concluded that a downward departure pursuant to § 5K2.10 was justified:
“Mr. King’s provocative behavior eventually subsided. The Court recognizes that by the time the defendants’ conduct crossed the line to unlawfulness, Mr. King was no longer resisting arrest. He posed no objective threat, and the defendants had no reasonable perception of danger. Nevertheless, the incident would not have escalated to this point, indeed it would not have occurred at all, but for Mr. King’s initial misconduct.” 833 F. Supp., at 787.
The court placed these facts within the context of the relevant Guideline range:
“Messrs. Koon and Powell were convicted of conduct which began as a legal use of force against a resistant suspect and subsequently crossed the line to unlawfulness, all in a matter of seconds, during the course of a dynamic arrest situation. However, the convicted offenses fall under the same Guideline Sections that would apply to a jailor, correctional officer, police officer or other state agent who intentionally used a dangerous weapon to assault an inmate, without legitimate cause to initiate a use of force.
“The two situations are clearly different. Police officers are always armed with ‘dangerous weapons’ and may legitimately employ those weapons to administer reasonable force. Where an officer’s initial use of force is provoked and lawful, the line between a legal arrest and an unlawful deprivation of civil rights within the aggravated assault Guideline is relatively thin. The stringent aggravated assault Guideline, along with its upward adjustments for use of a deadly weapon and bodily injury, contemplates a range of offenses involving deliberate and unprovoked assaultive conduct. The Guidelines do not adequately account for the differences between such ‘heartland’ offenses and the case
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC), 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., provides federal financial assistance to States and Territories to aid families with needy dependent children. Puerto Rico receives less assistance than do the States, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1308 (a)(1), 1396d (b) (1976 ed. and Supp. II). Appellees, AFDC recipients residing in Puerto Rico, filed this class action against the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (now the Secretary of Health and Human Services) in March 1977 in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico; they challenged the constitutionality of 42 U. S. C. §§ 1308 and 1396d (b), claiming successfully that the lower level of AFDC reimbursement provided to Puerto Rico violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee.
We disagree. Congress, which is empowered under the Territory Clause of the Constitution, U. S. Const., Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . . belonging to the United States,” may treat Puerto Rico differently from States so long as there is a rational basis for its actions. In Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1 (1978) (per curiam) , we concluded that a similar statutory-classification was rationally grounded on three factors: Puerto Rican residents do not contribute to the federal treasury; the cost of treating Puerto Rico as a State under the statute would be high; and greater benefits could disrupt the Puerto Rican economy. These same considerations are forwarded here in support of §§ 1308 and 1396d (b), Juris. Statement 12-14, and we see no reason to depart from our conclusion in Torres that they suffice to form a rational basis for the challenged statutory classification.
We reverse.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Blackmun, not now being persuaded that the Court’s summary disposition in Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1 (1978), so clearly controls this case, would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.
For example, the Secretary estimates that the additional cost of treating Puerto Rico as a State for AFDC purposes alone would be approximately $30 million per year, and, if the decision below were to apply equally to various other reimbursement programs under the Social Security Act, the total annual cost could exceed $240 million. Juris. Statement 12, n. 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:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is to what extent, if any, the Federal Power Commission, in the performance of its functions under the Federal Power Act, 41 Stat. 1063, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 791a et seq. (Power Act), and the Natural Gas Act, 52 Stat. 821, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 717 et seq. (Gas Act), has authority to prohibit discriminatory employment practices on the part of its regulatees.
I
In 1972 the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and several other organizations petitioned the Commission to issue a rule “requiring equal employment opportunity and nondiscrimination in the employment practices of its regulatees.” The proposed rule would have required the regulated companies to adopt affirmative action programs to combat discrimination in employment and would have given any person who believed himself to have been subjected to employment discrimination by any such company the right to file a complaint with the Commission.
The Commission refused to adopt the proposed rule, holding that it had no jurisdiction to do so because “the purposes of the Natural Gas and Federal Power Acts are economic regulation of entrepreneurs engaged in resource developments. So considered, we do not find the necessary nexus between those aspects of our economic regulatory activities and the employment procedures of the utility systems which we regulate, as would justify [adopting petitioners’ proposed rule].” 48 F. P. C. 40, 44.
On petition for review, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed that the Commission was without “power ... to prescribe personnel practices in detail and to receive complaints, adjudicate them, and punish directly infractions of those practices.” 172 U. S. App. D. C. 32, 35, 520 F. 2d 432, 435. The court held, however, that the Commission does have “power to take into account, in the performance of its regulatory functions, including licensing and rate review, evidence that the regulatee is a demonstrated discriminator in its employment relations.” Ibid.
Because of doubt as to the Commission’s recognition of any power on its part to take into account the employment practices of its regulatees even in the narrower sense described above, the Court of Appeals vacated the Commission’s order and remanded the case. Id., at 47, 520 F. 2d, at 447. The Commission and the NAACP each petitioned for certiorari, and we granted both petitions in order to consider the scope of the Commission’s authority to deal with discriminatory employment; practices on the part of the companies that it regulates. 423 U. S. 890.
II
The question presented is not whether the elimination of discrimination from our society is an important national goal. It clearly is. The question is not whether Congress could authorize the Federal Power Commission to combat such discrimination. It clearly could. The question is simply whether or to what extent Congress did grant the Commission such authority. Two possible statutory bases have been advanced to justify the conclusion that the Commission can or must concern itself with discriminatory employment practices on the part of the companies it regulates.
The first of these statutory bases is the legislative command to the Commission under the Power and Gas Acts to establish “just and reasonable” rates for the transmission and sale of electric energy, 16 U. S. C. § 824d (a), and for the transportation and sale of natural gas, 15 U. S. C. § 717c (a), and, consequently, to allow only such rates as will prevent consumers from being charged any unnecessary or illegal costs. The second and broader statutory basis advanced for Commission regulation of employment discrimination is the Commission’s asserted duty to advance the public interest. The NAACP notes that Congress found that “the business of transmitting and selling electric energy for ultimate distribution to the public is affected with a public interest,” 16 U. S. C. § 824 (a), and that “the business of transporting and selling natural gas for ultimate distribution to the public is affected with a public interest,” 15 U. S. C. § 717 (a). From these and other references to the “public interest” in the Gas and Power Acts, it is argued that the Commission is charged with advancing the public interest in general, and that the Commission is thus authorized if not required to promulgate rules prohibiting its regulatees from engaging in discriminatory employment practices, since ending discrimination in employment is in the public interest.
A
The Court of Appeals basically accepted the first of these statutory arguments:
“The Commission’s task in protecting the consumer against exploitation can be alternatively described as the task of seeing that no unnecessary or illegitimate costs are passed along to that consumer. Costs incurred by reason of a regulatee’s choosing to practice racial discrimination are within the reach of that responsibility. Without attempting an exhaustive enumeration of such costs, we identify at least the following as indicative of those arguably within the Commission’s range of concern: (1) du-plicative labor costs incurred in the form of back pay recoveries by employees who have proven that they were discriminatorily denied employment or advancement, (2) the costs of losing valuable government contracts terminated because of employment discrimination, (3) the costs of legal proceedings in either of these two categories, (4) the costs of strikes, demonstrations, and boycotts aimed against regula-tees because of employment discrimination, (5) excessive labor costs incurred because of the elimination from the prospective labor force of those who are discriminated against, and (6) the costs of inefficiency among minority employees demoralized by discriminatory barriers to their fair treatment or promotion.
“Obviously such costs of employment discrimination range from the very definite and easily ascertainable to the very questionable and virtually unquantifiable. The problem of how to see that they are not borne by the consumer could arise in any number of different regulatory contexts, including both rate and certificate proceedings. We therefore do not attempt to detail all the various ways the Commission may thus ‘regulate’ employment discrimination, leaving this in the first instance to the Commission itself.” 172 U. S. App. D. C., at 44, 520 F. 2d, at 444 (footnote omitted).
Without necessarily endorsing the specific identification of the costs “arguably within” the Commission’s “range of concern,” we agree with the basic conclusion of the Court of Appeals on this branch of the case. The Commission^ clearly has the duty to prevent its regulatees from charging rates based upon illegal, duplicative, or unnecessary labor costs. To the extent that such costs are demonstrably the product of a regulatee’s discriminatory employment practices, the Commission should disallow them. For example, when a company complies with a backpay award resulting from a finding of employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., it pays twice for work that was performed only once. The amount of the backpay award, therefore, can and should be disallowed as an unnecessary cost in a ratemaking proceeding.
To the extent that these and other similar costs, such as attorneys’ fees, can be or have been demonstrably quantified by judicial decree or the final action of an administrative agency charged with consideration of such matters, the Commission clearly should treat these costs as it treats any other illegal, unnecessary, or duplicative costs. We were told by counsel during oral argument that the Commission would routinely disallow the costs of a backpay award resulting from an order of the National Labor Relations Board or the decree of a court based upon a finding of an unfair labor practice. The governing principle is no different in the area of discriminatory employment practices.
As a general proposition it is clear that the Commission has the discretion to decide whether to approach these problems through the process of rulemaking, individual adjudication, or a combination of the two procedures. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 202-203. The present Commission practice, we are told, is to consider such questions only in individual ratemaking proceedings, under its detailed accounting procedures. Assuming that the Commission continues that practice, it has ample authority to consider whatever evidence and make whatever inquiries are necessary to determine whether a regulatee has incurred unnecessary or illegitimate costs because of racially discriminatory employment practices. 15 U. S. C. §§ 717c (e), 717m; 16 U. S. C. §§ 824d (e), 824f.
B
The Court of Appeals rejected the broader argument based upon the statutory criterion of “public interest,” and we hold that it was correct in doing so. This Court's cases have consistently held that the use of the words “public interest” in a regulatory statute is not a broad license to promote the general public welfare. Rather, the words take meaning from the purposes of the regulatory legislation.
For example, in the case of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which is responsible for enforcing an Act “designed ... to assure adequacy in transportation service,” “the term ‘public interest’ ... is not a concept without ascertainable criteria, but has direct relation to adequacy of transportation service, to its essential conditions of economy and efficiency, and to appropriate provision and best use of transportation facilities . . . .” New York Central Securities Corp. v. United, States, 287 U. S. 12, 24-25. See also New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 U. S. 392, 432; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190, 216; Federal Radio Comm’n v. Nelson Bros. Co., 289 U. S. 266, 285.
Thus, in order to give content and meaning to the words “public interest” as used in the Power and Gas Acts, it is necessary to look to the purposes for which the Acts were adopted. In the case of the Power and Gas Acts it is clear that the principal purpose of those Acts was to encourage the orderly development of plentiful supplies of electricity and natural gas at reasonable prices. While there are undoubtedly other subsidiary purposes contained in these Acts, the parties point to nothing in the Acts or their legislative histories to indicate that the elimination of employment discrimination was one of the purposes that Congress had in mind when it enacted this legislation. The use of the words “public interest” in the Gas and Power Acts is not a directive to the Commission to seek to eradicate discrimination, but, rather, is a charge to promote the orderly production of plentiful supplies of electric energy and natural gas at just and reasonable rates.
It is useful again to draw on the analogy of federal labor law. No less than in the federal legislation defining the national interest in ending employment discrimination, Congress in its earlier labor legislation unmistakably defined the national interest in free collective bargaining. Yet it could hardly be supposed that in directing the Federal Power Commission to be guided by the “public interest,” Congress thereby instructed it to take original jurisdiction over the processing of charges of unfair labor practices on the part of its regulatees.
We agree, in short, with the Court of Appeals that the Federal Power Commission is authorized to consider the consequences of discriminatory employment practices on the part of its regulatees only insofar as such consequences are directly related to the Commission's establishment of just and reasonable rates in the public interest. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment before us.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Under the proposed rule, a complaint that indicated a probable violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., could be referred by the Commission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The proposed rule is reproduced in full as an appendix to the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case. See 172 U. S. App. D. C. 32, 48, 520 F. 2d 432, 448,
We deal here only with questions of statutory interpretation. In the Court of Appeals and in its cross-petition for certiorari the NAACP argued that the Commission has a duty under the Fifth Amendment to prevent employment discrimination by its regulatees. In its briefs on the merits, however, the NAACP notes that a decision on this constitutional question is unnecessary if we hold, as we do, that the Commission has statutory authority to consider the consequences of employment discrimination in performing its mandated regulatory functions.
See, e. g., Acker v. United States, 298 U. S. 426, 430-431; Cities Serv. Gas Co. v. FPC, 424 E. 2d 411 (CA10); Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. v. FPC, 179 F. 2d 179 (CA3). See also n. 5, infra.
See, e. g., 15 U. S. C. §§ 717b, 717f (a), 717n; 16 U. S. C. §§797 (e), (g), 800 (a), 803 (i), 806, 815, 824a (a-c), (e), 824b (a-b), 824e (a). See also 15 U. S. C. §§ 717f (b-c), (e).
16 U. S. C. § 824a (a) (The purpose of the Power Act is to “assur[e] an abundant supply of electric energy throughout the United States with the greatest possible economy”); Pennsylvania Power Co. v. FPC, 343 U. S. 414, 418 (“A major purpose of the [Power] Act is to protect power consumers against excessive prices”); FPC v. Hope Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 610 (The “primary aim” of the Natural Gas Act is “to protect consumers against exploitation at the hands of natural gas companies”). See also S. Rep. No. 621, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 17; FPC v. Tennessee Gas Co., 371 U. S. 145, 154; Atlantic Rfg. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 360 U. S. 378, 388; Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U. S. 747, 770.
For example, the Commission has authority to consider conservation, environmental, and antitrust questions. See 15 U. S. C. § 717s (a); 16 U. S. C. §§803 (a), (h); Gulf States Utilities Co. v. FPC, 411 U. S. 747; Udall v. FPC, 387 U. S. 428.
The Federal Communications Commission has adopted regulations dealing with the employment practices of its regulatees. See 47 CFR §§ 73.125, 73.301, 73.599, 73.680, 73.793 (1975). These regulations can be justified as necessary to enable the FCC to satisfy its obligation under the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., to ensure that its licensees’ programming fairly reflects the tastes and viewpoints of minority groups. See Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 123 U. S. App. D. C. 328, 359 F. 2d 994; 33 Fed. Reg. 9960, 9962. It has nowhere been argued that the Federal Power Commission needs similar regulations in order to promote energy production at reasonable rates.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case arises out of a dispute between parties to a multi-employer collective-bargaining agreement. The plaintiff unions allege that, in violation of the antitrust laws, the multi-employer association and its members coerced certain third parties, as well as some of the association's members, to enter into business relationships with nonunion firms. This coercion, according to the complaint, adversely affected the trade of certain unionized firms and thereby restrained the business activities of the unions. The question presented is whether the complaint sufficiently alleges that the unions have been “injured in [their] business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws” and may therefore recover treble damages under §4 of the Clayton Act. 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 15. Unlike the majority of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, we agree with the District Court’s conclusion that the complaint is insufficient.
I
The two named plaintiffs (the Union)&emdash;the California State Council of Carpenters and the Carpenters 46 Northern Counties Conference Board&emdash;are affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. The Union represents more than 50,000 individuals employed by the defendants in the carpentry, drywall, piledriving, and related industries throughout the State of California. The Union’s complaint is filed as a class action on behalf of numerous affiliated local unions and district councils. The defendants are Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. (Associated), a membership corporation composed of various building and construction contractors, approximately 250 members of Associated who are identified by name in an exhibit attached to the complaint, and 1,000 unidentified co-conspirators.
The Union and Associated, and their respective predecessors, have been parties to collective-bargaining agreements governing the terms and conditions of employment in construction-related industries in California for over 25 years. The wages and other benefits paid pursuant to these agreements amount to more than $750 million per year. In addition, approximately 3,000 contractors who are not members of Associated have entered into separate “memorandum agreements” with the Union, which bind them to the terms of the master collective-bargaining agreements between the Union and Associated. The amended complaint does not state the number of nonsignatory employers or the number of nonunion employees who are active in the relevant market.
In paragraphs 23 and 24 of the amended complaint, the Union alleges the factual basis for five different damages claims. Paragraph 23 alleges generally that the defendants conspired to abrogate and weaken the collective-bargaining relationship between the Union and the signatory employers. In seven subsections, paragraph 24 sets forth activities allegedly committed pursuant to the conspiracy. The most specific allegations relate to the labor relations between the parties. The complaint’s description of actions affecting nonparties is both brief and vague. It is alleged that defendants
“(3) Advocated, encouraged, induced, and aided nonmembers of defendant Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. to refuse to enter into collective bargaining relationships with plaintiffs and each of them;
“(4) Advocated, encouraged, induced, coerced, aided and encouraged owners of land and other letters of construction contracts to hire contractors and subcontractors who are not signatories to collective bargaining agreements with plaintiffs and each of them;
“(5) Advocated, induced, coerced, encouraged, and aided members of Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., non-members of Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., and ‘memorandum contractors’ to enter into subcontracting agreements with subcontractors who are not signatories to any collective bargaining agreements with plaintiffs and each of them”; App. E to Pet. for Cert. 17-19 (emphasis added).
Paragraph 25 describes the alleged “purpose and effect” of these activities: first, “to weaken, destroy, and restrain the trade of certain contractors,” who were either members of Associated or memorandum contractors who had signed agreements with the Union; and second, to restrain “the free exercise of the business activities of plaintiffs and each of them.” Plaintiffs claim that these alleged antitrust violations caused them $25 million in damages. The complaint does not identify any specific component of this damages claim.
After hearing “lengthy oral argument” and after receiving two sets of written briefs, one filed before and the second filed after this Court’s decision in Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters, 421 U. S. 616 (1975), the District Court dismissed the complaint, including the federal antitrust claim. 404 F. Supp. 1067 (ND Cal. 1975). The court observed that the complaint alleged “a rather vague, general conspiracy,” and that the allegations “appear typical of disputes a union might have with an employer,” which in the normal course are resolved by grievance and arbitration or by the NLRB. Id., at 1069. Without seeking to clarify or further amend the first amended complaint, the Union filed its notice of appeal on October 9, 1975.
Over five years later, on November 20, 1980, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the Union’s federal antitrust claim. 648 F. 2d 527. The majority of the Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court’s characterization of the antitrust claim; it adopted a construction of the amended complaint which is somewhat broader than the allegations in the pleading itself. The Court of Appeals held (1) that a Sherman Act violation — a group boycott — had been alleged, id., at 531-532; (2) that the defendants’ conduct was not within the antitrust exemption for labor activities, id., at 532-536; and (3) that the plaintiffs had standing to recover damages for the injury to their own business activities occasioned by the defendants’ “industry-wide boycott against all subcontractors with whom the Unions had signed agreements... Id., at 537. In support of the Union’s standing, the majority reasoned that the Union was within the area of the economy endangered by a breakdown of competitive conditions, not only because injury to the Union was a foreseeable consequence of the antitrust violation, but also because that injury was specifically intended by the defendants. The court noted that its conclusion was consistent with other cases holding that union organizational and representational activities constitute a form of business protected by the antitrust laws.
II
As the case comes to us, we must assume that the Union can prove the facts alleged in its amended complaint. It is not, however, proper to assume that the Union can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the antitrust laws in ways that have not been alleged.
We first note that the Union’s most specific claims of injury involve matters that are not subject to review under the antitrust laws. The amended complaintalleges^thatthe defendants have breached their collective-bargaining agreements in various ways, and that they have manipulated their corporate names and corporate status in order to divert business to nonunion divisions or firms that they actually control. Such deceptive diversion of business to the nonunion portion of a so-called “double-breasted” operatiorTmigEF constitute a breach of contract, an unfair labor practicei_orLperhaps-even a common-law fraud or deceit, but in the context of the bargaining relationship between the parties to this litigation, such activities are plainly not subject to review under the federal antitrust laws. Similarly, the charge that the defendants “advocated, encouraged, induced, and aided nonmembers... to refuse to enter into collective bargaining relationships” with the Union (¶ 24(3)) does not describe an antitrust violation.
The Union’s antitrust claims arise from alleged restraints caused by defendants in the market for construction contracting and subcontracting. The complaint alleges that defendants “coerced” two classes of persons: (1) landowners and others who let construction contracts, i. e., the defendants’ customers and potential customers; and (2) general contractors, i. e., defendants’ competitors and defendants themselves. Coercion against the members of both classes was designed to induce them to give some of their business — but not necessarily all of it — to nonunion firms. Although the pleading does not allege that the coercive conduct increased the aggregate share of nonunion firms in the market, it does allege that defendants’ activities weakened and restrained the trade “of certain contractors.” See n. 4, supra. Thus, particular victims of coercion may have diverted particular contracts to nonunion firms and thereby caused certain unionized subcontractors to lose some business.
We think the Court of Appeals properly assumed that such coercion might violate the antitrust laws. An agreement to restrain trade may be unlawful even though it does not entirely exclude its victims from the market. See Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, 17 (1945). Coercive activity that prevents its victims from making free choices between market alternatives is inherently destructive of competitive conditions and may be condemned even without proof of its actual market effect. Cf. Klors, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U. S. 207, 210-214 (1959).
Even though coercion directed by defendants at third parties in order to restrain the trade of “certain” contractors and subcontractors may have been unlawful, it does not, of course, necessarily follow that still another party&emdash;the Union&emdash;is a person injured by reason of a violation of the antitrust laws within the meaning of § 4 of the Clayton Act.
III
We first consider the language in the controlling statute. See Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). The class of persons who may maintain a private damages action under the antitrust laws is broadly defined in § 4 of the Clayton Act. 15 U. S. C. § 15. That section provides:
“Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
A literal reading of the statute is broad enough to encompass every harm that can be attributed directly or indirectly to the consequences of an antitrust violation. Some of our prior cases have paraphrased the statute in an equally expansive way. But before we hold that the statute is as broad as its words suggest, we must consider whether Congress intended such an open-ended meaning.
The critical statutory language was originally enacted in 1890 as § 7 of the Sherman Act. 26 Stat. 210. The legislative history of the section shows that Congress was primarily interested in creating an effective remedy for consumers who were forced to pay excessive prices by the giant trusts and combinations that dominated certain interstate markets. That history supports a broad construction of this remedial provision. A proper interpretation of the section cannot, however, ignore the larger context in which the entire statute was debated.
The repeated references to the common law in the debates that preceded the enactment of the Sherman Act make it clear that Congress intended the Act to be construed in the light of its common-law background. Senator Sherman stated that the bill “does not announce a new principle of law, but applies old and well recognized principles of the common law to the complicated jurisdiction of our State and Federal Government.” Thus our comments on the need for judicial interpretation of § 1 are equally applicable to §7:
“One problem presented by the language of § 1 of the Sherman Act is that it cannot mean what it says. The statute says that ‘every’ contract that restrains trade is unlawful. But, as Mr. Justice Brandéis perceptively noted, restraint is the very essence of every contract; read literally, § 1 would outlaw the entire body of private contract law....
“Congress, however, did not intend the text of the Sherman Act to delineate the full meaning of the statute or its application in concrete situations. The legislative history makes it perfectly clear that it expected the courts to give shape to the statute’s broad mandate by drawing on common-law tradition.” National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U. S. 679, 687-688 (1978) (footnotes omitted).
Just as the substantive content of the Sherman Act draws meaning from its common-law antecedents, so must we consider the contemporary legal context in which Congress acted when we try to ascertain the intended scope of the private remedy created by § 7.
In 1890, notwithstanding general language in many state constitutions providing in substance that “every wrong shall have a remedy,” a number of judge-made rules circumscribed the availability of damages recoveries in both tort and contract litigation — doctrines such as foreseeability and proximate cause, directness of injury, certainty of damages, and privity of contract. Although particular common-law limitations were not debated in Congress, the frequent references to common-law principles imply that Congress simply assumed that antitrust damages litigation would be subject to constraints comparable to well-accepted common-law rules applied in comparable litigation.
The federal judges who first confronted the task of giving meaning to § 7 so understood the congressional intent. Thus in 1910 the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held as a matter of law that neither a creditor nor a stockholder of a corporation that was injured by a violation of the antitrust laws could recover treble damages under § 7. Loeb v. East man Kodak Co., 183 F. 704. The court explained that the plaintiff’s injury as a stockholder was “indirect, remote, and consequential.” Id., at 709. This holding was consistent with Justice Holmes’ explanation of a similar construction of the remedial provision of the Interstate Commerce Act a few years later: “The general tendency of the law, in regard to damages at least, is not to go beyond the first step.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co., 245 U. S. 531, 533 (1918). When Congress enacted § 4 of the Clayton Act in 1914, and when it reenacted that section in 1955, 69 Stat. 282, it adopted the language of § 7 and presumably also the judicial gloss that avoided a simple literal interpretation.
As this Court has observed, the lower federal courts have been “virtually unanimous in concluding that Congress did not intend the antitrust laws to provide a remedy in damages for all injuries that might conceivably be traced to an antitrust violation.” Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S. 251, 263, n. 14 (1972). Just last Term we stated:
“An antitrust violation may be expected to cause ripples of harm to flow through the Nation’s economy; but ‘despite the broad wording of §4 there is a point beyond which the wrongdoer should not be held liable.’ [Illi nois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S.], at 760 (Brennan, J., dissenting). It is reasonable to assume that Congress did not intend to allow every person tangentially affected by an antitrust violation to maintain an action to recover threefold damages for the injury to his business or property.” Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, 457 U. S. 465, 476-477 (1982).
It is plain, therefore, that the question whether the Union may recover for the injury it allegedly suffered by reason of the defendants’ coercion against certain third parties cannot be answered simply by reference to the broad language of § 4. Instead, as was required in common-law damages litigation in 1890, the question requires us to evaluate the plaintiff’s harm, the alleged wrongdoing by the defendants, and the relationship between them.
f-H <J
There is a similarity between the struggle of common-law judges to articulate a precise definition of the concept of “proximate cause,” and the struggle of federal judges to articulate a precise test to determine whether a party injured by an antitrust violation may recover treble damages. It is common ground that the judicial remedy cannot encompass every conceivable harm that can be traced to alleged wrongdoing. In both situations the infinite variety of claims that may arise make it virtually impossible to announce a black-letter rule that will dictate the result in every case. Instead, previously decided cases identify factors that circumscribe and guide the exercise of judgment in deciding whether the law affords a remedy in specific circumstances.
The factors that favor judicial recognition of the Union’s antitrust claim are easily stated. The complaint does allege a causal connection between an antitrust violation and harm to the Union and further alleges that the defendants intended to cause that harm. As we have indicated, however, the mere fact that the claim is literally encompassed by the Clayton Act does not end the inquiry. We are also satisfied that an allegation of improper motive, although it may support a plaintiff’s damages claim under § 4, is not a panacea that will enable any complaint to withstand a motion to dismiss. Indeed, in McCready, we specifically held: “The availability of the § 4 remedy to some person who claims its benefit is not a question of the specific intent of the conspirators.” 457 U. S., at 479.
A number of other factors may be controlling. In this case it is appropriate to focus on the nature of the plaintiff’s alleged injury. As the legislative history shows, the Sherman Act was enacted to assure customers the benefits of price competition, and our prior cases have emphasized the central interest in protecting the economic freedom of participants in the relevant market. Last Term in Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, supra, we identified the relevance of this central policy to a determination of the plaintiff’s right to maintain an action under §4. McCready alleged that she was a consumer of psychotherapeutic services and that she had been injured by the defendants’ conspiracy to restrain competition in the market for such services. The Court stressed the fact that “McCready’s injury was of a type that Congress sought to redress in providing a private remedy for violations of the antitrust laws.” 457 U. S., at 483, citing Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U. S. 477, 487-489 (1977). After noting that her injury “was inextricably intertwined with the injury the conspirators sought to inflict on psychologists and the psychotherapy market,” 457 U. S., at 484, the Court concluded that such an injury “falls squarely within the area of congressional concern.” Ibid.
In this case, however, the Union was neither a consumer nor a competitor in the market in which trade was restrained. It is not clear whether the Union’s interests would be served or disserved by enhanced competition in the market. As a general matter, a union’s primary goal is to enhance the earnings and improve the working conditions of its membership; that goal is not necessarily served, and indeed may actually be harmed, by uninhibited competition among employers striving to reduce costs in order to obtain a competitive advantage over their rivals. At common law— as well as in the early days of administration of the federal antitrust laws — the collective activities of labor unions were regarded as a form of conspiracy in restraint of trade. Federal policy has since developed not only a broad labor exemption from the antitrust laws, but also a separate body of labor law specifically designed to protect and encourage the organizational and representational activities of labor unions. Set against this background, a union, in its capacity as bargaining representative, will frequently not be part of the class the Sherman Act was designed to protect, especially in disputes with employers with whom it bargains. In each case its alleged injury must be analyzed to determine whether it is of the type that the antitrust statute was intended to forestall. See Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., supra, at 487-488. In this case, particularly in light of the longstanding collective-bargaining relationship between the parties, the Union’s labor-market interests seem to predominate, and the Brunswick test is not satisfied.
An additional factor is the directness or indirectness of the asserted injury. In this case, the chain of causation between the Union’s injury and the alleged restraintlntHe market for construction subcontracts contains several somewhat vaguely defined links. According to the complaint, defendants applied coercion against certain landowners and other contracting parties in order to cause them to divertT business* from certain union contractors to nonunion contractors. As a re-suit, the Union’s complaint alleges, the Union suffered unspecified injuries in its “business activities.” It is obvious that any such injuries were only an indirect result of whatever harm may have been suffered by “certain” construction contractors and subcontractors.
If either these firms, or the immediate victims of coercion by defendants, have been injured by an antitrust violation, their injuries would be direct and, as we held in McCready, they would have a right to maintain their own treble-damages actions against the defendants. An action on their behalf would encounter none of the conceptual difficulties that encumber the Union’s claim. The existence of an identifiable class of persons whose self-interest would normally motivate them to vindicate the public interest in antitrust enforcement diminishes the justification for allowing a more remote party such as the Union to perform the office of a private attorney general. Denying the Union a remedy on the basis of its allegations in this case is not likely to leave a significant antitrust violation undetected or unremedied.
Partly because it is indirect, and partly because the alleged effects on the Union may have been produced by independent factors, the Union’s damages claim is also highly speculative. There is, for example, no allegation.that any collective-bargaining agreement was terminated as a result of tliecoer-cion, no allegation that the aggregate share of the contracting market controlled by union firms has diminished, no allegation that the number of employed union members has declined, and no allegation that the Union’s revenues in the form of dues or initiation fees have decreased. Moreover, although coercion against certain firms is alleged, there is no assertion that any such firm was prevented from doing business with any union firms or that any firm or group of firms was subjected to a complete boycott. See nn. 9, 15, and 16, supra. Other than the alleged injuries flowing from breaches of the collective-bargaining agreements — injuries that would be remediable under other laws — nothing but speculation informs the Union’s claim of injury by reason of the alleged unlawful coercion. Yet, as we have recently reiterated, it is appropriate for § 4 purposes “to consider whether a claim rests at bottom on some abstract conception or speculative measure of harm.” Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, 457 U. S., at 475, n. 11, citing Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S., at 262-263, n. 14.
The indirectness of the alleged injury also implicates the strong interest, identified in our prior cases, in keeping the scope of complex antitrust trials within judicially manageable limits. These cases have stressed the importance of avoiding either the risk of duplicate recoveries on the one hand, or the danger of complex apportionment of damages on the other. Thus, in Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U. S. 481 (1968), we refused to allow the defendants to discount the plaintiffs’ damages claim to the extent that overcharges had been passed on to the plaintiffs’ customers. We noted that any attempt to ascertain damages with such precision “would often require additional long and complicated proceedings involving massive evidence and complicated theories.” Id., at 493. In Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720 (1977), we held that treble damages could not be recovered by indirect purchasers of concrete blocks who had paid an enhanced price because their suppliers had been victimized by a price-fixing conspiracy. We observed that potential plaintiffs at each level in the distribution chain would be in a position to assert conflicting claims to a common fund, the amount of the alleged overcharge, thereby creating the danger of multiple liability for the fund and prejudice to absent plaintiffs.
“Permitting the use of pass-on theories under § 4 essentially would transform treble-damages actions into massive efforts to apportion the recovery among all potential plaintiffs that could have absorbed part of the overcharge — from direct purchasers to middlemen to ultimate consumers. However appealing this attempt to allocate the overcharge might seem in theory, it would add whole new dimensions of complexity to treble-damages suits and seriously undermine their effectiveness.” Id., at 737-738.
The same concerns should guide us in determining whether the Union is a proper plaintiff under § 4 of the Clayton Act. As the Court wrote in Illinois Brick, massive and complex damages litigation not only burdens the courts, but also undermines the effectiveness of treble-damages suits. Id., at 745. In this case, if the Union’s complaint asserts a claim for damages under § 4, the District Court would face problems of identifying damages and apportioning them among directly victimized contractors and subcontractors and indirectly affected employees and union entities. It would be necessary to determine to what extent the coerced firms diverted business away from union subcontractors, and then to what extent those subcontractors absorbed the damage to their businesses or passed it on to employees by reducing the work force or cutting hours or wages. In turn it would be necessary to ascertain the extent to which the affected employees absorbed their losses and continued to pay union dues.
We conclude, therefore, that the Union’s allegations of consequential harm resulting from a violation of the antitrust laws, although buttressed by an allegation of intent to harm the Union, are insufficient as a matter of law. Other relevant factors — the nature of the Union’s injury, the tenuous and speculative character of the relationship between the alleged antitrust violation and the Union’s alleged injury, the potential for duplicative recovery or complex apportionment of damages, and the existence of more direct victims of the alleged conspiracy — weigh heavily against judicial enforcement of the Union’s antitrust claim. Accordingly, we hold that, based on the allegations of this complaint, the District Court was correct in concluding that the Union is not a person injured by reason of a violation of the antitrust laws within the meaning of § 4 of the Clayton Act. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The facts set forth in paragraphs 23 and 24, initially alleged in support of the Union’s federal antitrust claim, are realleged in each of the other claims for relief: breach of collective-bargaining agreements (¶¶ 29-31); intentional interference with contractual relations (¶¶ 32-35); intentional interference with business relationships (¶¶ 36-39); and violation of the California antitrust statute (¶¶ 40-43).
For example, it is alleged that defendants breached their collective-bargaining agreements “by failing to pay agreed-upon wages, by failing to use the hiring hall, by failing to pay Trust Fund contributions, by failing to observe other terms and conditions of employment, and by generally weakening the good faith requirement of the collective bargaining agreements”; that defendants improperly.changed their names and corporate status and made use of so-called “double breasted operations”; and that they encouraged nonmembers of Associated to refuse to enter into collective-bargaining agreements with the Union.
The word “coerced” did not appear in the complaint as originally filed. Even as amended after the filing of motions to dismiss, the complaint does not allege that the defendants used any coercion to persuade nonmembers of Associated to refuse to enter into collective-bargaining agreements with the Union (¶24(3)). The complaint alleges neither the identity nor the number of landowners, general contractors, or others who were coerced into making contracts with nonunion firms.
Paragraph 25, which describes the effect of the conspiracy, reads in full as follows:
“The purpose and effect of the above described activities, plan and conspiracy are oppressive, unreasonable, and illegal, and are in restraint of trade and an unlawful interference and restraint of the free exercise of the business activities of plaintiffs and each of them, all in violation of 15 U. S. C. Section 1. The purpose and effect of the above described activities, plan and conspiracy, in addition, are to weaken, destroy, and restrain the trade of certain contractors, both members of the Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. and non-members, who are ‘memorandum contractors,’ who have faithfully performed the terms and conditions set out in the master collective bargaining agreements described above. The effect of this restraint on trade is to further weaken and destroy plaintiffs in this matter. These activities are in restraint of the free exercise of plaintiffs’ trade and an interference therein, all in violation of 15 U. S. C. Section 1.” App. E to Pet. for Cert. 20-21.
Plaintiffs do not seek injunctive relief under § 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 26, and they do not ask us to consider whether they have standing to request such relief.
An order dismissing the federal antitrust claim and the state-law claims was filed on August 4, 1975, and an amended order dismissing the entire complaint was entered on September 10,1975. The District Court had initially stayed the breach-of-contract claim for 120 days pending grievance and arbitration procedures. On reconsideration it also dismissed the breach-of-contract claim, deciding that the suit had been prematurely filed.
Addressing the federal antitrust claim, the District Court concluded:
“The essence of plaintiffs’ claim seems to be that defendants violated the antitrust laws insofar as they declined to enter into agreements with plaintiffs to deal only with subcontractors which were signatories to contracts with plaintiffs, precisely the type of agreement which subjected the union in Connell to antitrust liability.” 404 F. Supp., at 1070.
The District Court reasoned that the employers’ refusal to enter into such an agreement could not provide the basis for an antitrust claim.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all other claims.
The Court of Appeals majority read subparagraph (4) of paragraph 24, quoted supra, at 522, as though it alleged that the defendants had coerced landowners and other persons who let construction contracts “to hire only construction firms, primarily subcontractors, who had not signed with the Unions.” 648 F. 2d, at 532 (emphasis added); see also id., at 544 (denying petition for rehearing). The word “only” does not appear in the amended complaint, and it implies that the defendants’ activities gave rise to a broader restraint than was actually alleged.
The majority read subparagraph (5) of paragraph 24 to charge that defendants had “coerced and aided each other to subcontract only with subcontractors who had not signed with the Unions.” Id., at 531 (emphasis added). Again using the word “only,” which does not appear in the complaint itself, the majority characterized the defendants’ alleged activities as “very similar to a concerted refusal to deal, or a group boycott.” Ibid. It concluded that the allegations “present virtually the obverse of the situation described in Connell”: the conspiracy, if successful, “would effectively lock union-signatory subcontractors out of a portion of the market for carpentry work.” Id., at 532.
See Tugboat, Inc. v. Mobile Towing Co., 534 F. 2d 1172, 1176-1177 (CA5 1976); International Assn, of Heat & Frost Insulators v. United Contractors Assn., 483 F. 2d 384, 397-398 (CA3 1973).
Circuit Judge Sneed dissented. He first rejected the majority’s characterization of the complaint, agreeing instead with the District Court. Second, assuming that the complaint alleged a boycott of certain employers, he concluded that neither the employees of a victim of the boycott nor their collective-bargaining representative had standing to assert the antitrust claim. Finally, he concluded that an injury that affected only the Union’s organizational and representational activity was remediable under the labor laws rather than the antitrust laws.
The Court of Appeals denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on May 22, 1981. Accompanying the order was a statement by the majority rebutting the petitioners’ assertion that the opinion rendered multiemployer bargaining units unlawful, and a dissent by Circuit Judge Sneed. 648 F. 2d, at 543, 545.
The Union had an adequate opportunity to amend its pleading to add factual allegations demonstrating that the District Court’s decision to dismiss the complaint was based on a misunderstanding of its antitrust claim.
In analyzing the antitrust allegations in the amended complaint, we therefore construe the references to “contractors and subcontractors who are not signatories to collective bargaining agreements” as referring to completely independent nonunion firms rather than to operations covertly controlled by one or more defendants.
The Court of Appeals did not reverse the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint with regard to these allegations. 648 F. 2d, at 531-532, 537, 540.
See Brief for Respondents 37. There is no allegation of wrongful conduct directed at nonunion subcontracting firms. We therefore assume that, if any nonunion firms refused to bargain witKTHe "Union because of the conspiracy, they did so because they were rewarded with business they would not otherwise have obtained. Thus, nonunion firms could not be considered victims of the conspiracy; rather, they appear to have been its indirect beneficiaries. None are named either as defendants or as co-conspirators.
The amended complaint also does not allege any restraint on competition in the market for labor union services. Unlike the two cases involving union plaintiffs cited by the Court of Appeals, see n. 10, supra, in this case there is no claim that competition between rival unions has been injured or even that any rival unions exist.
The complaint does not specify the nature of the “coercion.” It does not, for example, allege that the defendants refused to deal with all members of either of the two classes of persons against whom coercion was applied. Indeed, it is highly improbable that the defendants — all of whom are signatories to union contracts — would refuse to deal with all of their customers and potential customers in an attempt to divert all of their business to nonunion firms.
There is no allegation that any person subjected to coercion was required to deal exclusively with nonunion firms.
Had the District Court required the Union to describe the nature of the alleged coercion with particularity before ruling on the motion to dismiss, it might well have been evident that no violation of law had been alleged. In making the contrary assumption for purposes of our decision, we are perhaps stretching the rule of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 47-48 (1957), too far. Certainly in a case of this magnitude, a district court must retain the power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual controversy to proceed.
Although we do not know what kind of coercion defendants allegedly employed, we assume for purposes of decision that it had a predatory “nature or character,” Klors, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U. S., at 211, and that it would “cripple the freedom of traders and thereby restrain their ability to sell in accordance with their own judgment.” Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U. S. 211, 213 (1951).
In Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219 (1948), the Court held that growers of sugar beets could maintain a treble-damages action against refiners who had allegedly conspired to fix the price that they would pay for the beets. Although previous price-fixing cases had involved agreements among sellers to fix sales prices, the Court readily concluded that the Act applied equally to an agreement among competing buyers to fix purchase prices. The Court stated:
“The statute does not confine its protection to consumers, or to purchasers, or to competitors, or to sellers. Nor does it immunize the outlawed acts because they
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent is a manufacturer of mobile homes. On August 5, 1964, it employed about 110 persons. On August 6, 1964, as a result of a breakdown in collective bargaining negotiations between respondent and the Union, about half of the employees struck. Respondent cut back its production schedule from the prestrike figure of 20 units to 10 units per week, and curtailed its orders for raw materials correspondingly. On August 18, the Union accepted the respondent’s last contract offer, terminated the strike, and requested reinstatement of the strikers.
Respondent explained that it could not reinstate the strikers “right at that moment” because of the curtailment of production caused by the strike. The evidence is undisputed that it was the company’s intention “at all times” to increase production to the full prestrike volume “as soon as possible.”
The six strikers involved in this case applied for reinstatement on August 20 and on a number of occasions thereafter. On that date, no jobs were available, and their applications were rejected. However, between October 8 and 16, the company hired six new employees, who had not previously worked for it, for jobs which the striker-applicants were qualified to fill. Later, in the period from November 2 through December 14, the six strikers were reinstated.
An NLRB complaint was issued upon charges filed by the six employees. As amended, the complaint charged respondent with unfair labor practices within the meaning of §§ 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (3)) because of the hiring of new employees instead of the six strikers. After hearing, the Trial Examiner concluded that respondent had discriminated against the strikers by failing to accord them their rights to reinstatement as employees in October when respondent hired others to fill the available jobs. Accordingly, the Examiner recommended that respondent should make each of the six whole for loss of earnings due to its failure to return them to employment at the time of the October hirings and until they were re-employed. A three-member panel of the Board adopted the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
The Board filed a petition for enforcement of the order. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one judge dissenting, denied enforcement. 366 F. 2d 126 (1966). It held that the right of the strikers to jobs must be judged as of the date when they apply for reinstatement. Since the six strikers applied for reinstatement on August 20, and since there were no jobs available on that date, the court concluded that the respondent had not committed an unfair labor practice by failing to employ them. We granted certiorari on petition of the Board. 386 U. S. 990 (1967). We reverse.
Section 2 (3) of the Act (61 Stat. 137, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (3)) provides that an individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of a labor dispute continues to be an employee if he has not obtained regular and substantially equivalent employment. If, after conclusion of the strike, the employer refuses to reinstate striking employees, the effect is to discourage employees from exercising their rights to organize and to strike guaranteed by §§ 7 and 13 of the Act (61 Stat. 140 and 151, 29 U. S. C. §§ 157 and 163). Under §§ 8 (a)(1) and (3) (29 U. S. C. §§ 158 (1) and (3)) it is an unfair labor practice to interfere with the exercise of these rights. Accordingly, unless the employer who refuses to reinstate strikers can show that his action was due to “legitimate and substantial business justifications,” he is guilty of an unfair labor practice. NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, 388 U. S. 26, 34 (1967). The burden of proving justification is on the employer. Ibid. It is the primary responsibility of the Board and not of the courts “to strike the proper balance between the asserted business justifications and the invasion of employee rights in light of the Act and its policy.” Id., at 33-34. See also NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S. 221, 228-229, 235-236 (1963). Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U. S. 474 (1951), is not an invitation to disregard this rule.
In some situations, “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for refusing to reinstate employees who engaged in an economic strike have been recognized. One is when the jobs claimed by the strikers are occupied by workers hired as permanent replacements during the strike in order to continue operations. NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U. S. 333, 345-346 (1938); NLRB v. Plastilite Corp., 375 F. 2d 343 (C. A. 8th Cir.1967); Brown & Root, 132 N. L. R. B. 486 (1961). In the present case, respondent hired 21 replacements during the strike, compared with about 55 strikers; and it is clear that the jobs of the six strikers were available after the strike. Indeed, they were filled by new employees.
A second basis for justification is suggested by the Board — when the striker’s job has been eliminated for substantial and bona fide reasons other than considerations relating to labor relations: for example, “the need to adapt to changes in business conditions or to improve efficiency.” We need not consider this claimed justification because in the present case no changes in methods of production or operation were shown to have been instituted which might have resulted in eliminating the strikers’ jobs.
The Court of Appeals emphasized in the present case the absence of any antiunion motivation for the failure to reinstate the six strikers. But in NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, supra, which was decided after the Court of Appeals’ opinion in the present case, we held that proof of antiunion motivation is unnecessary when the employer’s conduct “could have adversely affected employee rights to some extent” and when the employer does not meet his burden of establishing “that he was motivated by legitimate objectives.” Id., at 34. Great Dane Trailers determined that payment of vacation benefits to nonstrikers and denial of those, payments to strikers carried “a potential for adverse effect upon employee rights.” Because “no evidence of a proper motivation appeared in the record,” we agreed with the Board that the employer had committed an unfair labor practice. Id., at 35. A refusal to reinstate striking employees, which is involved in this case, is clearly no less destructive of important employee rights than a refusal to make vacation payments. And because the employer here has not shown “legitimate and substantial business justifications,” the conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice without reference to intent.
The Court of Appeals, however, held that the respondent did not discriminate against the striking employees because on the date when they applied for work, two days after the end of the strike, respondent had no need f;or their services. But it is undisputed that the employees continued to make known their availability and desire for reinstatement, and that “at all times” respondent intended to resume full production to reactivate the jobs and to fill them.
It was clearly error to hold that the right of the strikers to reinstatement expired on August 20, when they first applied. This basic right to jobs cannot depend upon job availability as of the moment when the applications are filed. The right to reinstatement does not depend upon technicalities relating to application. On the contrary, the status of the striker as an employee continues until he has obtained “other regular and substantially equivalent employment.” (29 U. S. C. § 152 (3).) Frequently a strike affects the level of production and the number of jobs. It is entirely normal for striking employees to apply for reinstatement immediately after the end of the strike and before full production is resumed. If and when a job for which the striker is qualified becomes available, he is entitled to an offer of reinstatement. The right can be defeated only if the employer can show “legitimate and substantial business justifications.” NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, supra.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Union is the San Bemardino-Riverside Counties District Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO.
Respondent’s production program was consistent with this intention. During a period of about 18 weeks after the strike, the number of units scheduled per week increased in a steady progression from 10 to 12 to 14 to 16 to 18 to 19 and, finally, to 20 for the week ending December 13, 1964.
153 N. L. R. B. 425 (1965). “The Board is authorized to delegate to any group of three or more members any or all of the powers which it may itself exercise.” Section 3 (b), 61 Stat. 139, 29 U. S. C. §153 (b).
Although the decision of the Court of Appeals, as we read it, resulted from its erroneous holding that the right of the strikers to jobs depends upon the date of their (first) application for reinstatement, it recited that the Board’s General Counsel had failed to show “that the jobs of complainants had not been absorbed or that they were still available.” Such proof is not essential to establish an unfair labor practice. It relates to justification, and the burden of such proof is on the employer. NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, supra, at 34. Cf. also NLRB v. Plastilite Corp., 375 F. 2d 343, 348 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1967).
Unfair labor practice strikers are ordinarily entitled to reinstatement even if the employer has hired permanent replacements. See Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U. S. 270, 278 (1956).
The Trial Examiner found that “the six job openings in October could have been filled by the striker applicants and, had the Respondent considered them as employees rather than as mere applicants for hire, would have been so filled.”
Brief on behalf of NLRB 15.
The respondent contends that the Union agreed to a nonpreferen-tial hiring list and thereby waived the rights of the strikers to reinstatement ahead of the new applicants. The Board found that the Union, having lost the strike, merely “bowed to the [respondent’s] decision.” The Court of Appeals did not rule on this point or on the effect, if any, that its resolution might have upon the outcome of this case. Upon remand, the issue will be open for such consideration as may be appropriate.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent Charles Hawn sustained severe physical injuries when he slipped and fell through an uncovered hatch hole on the petitioner Pope & Talbot’s vessel. The ship was then berthed at a pier located in Pennsylvania waters of the Delaware River. Loading of the vessel with grain for a voyage had been temporarily interrupted to make minor repairs on the grain loading equipment. Hawn was doing carpentry work on this equipment to make it spread the grain evenly and thereby balance the ship’s load to make the coming voyage safer. He was not an employee of Pope & Talbot’s but of the respondent Haenn Ship Ceiling and Refitting Company which had been hired to make these repairs. Hawn brought this civil action in a United States District Court to recover damages for his injuries. His complaint charged that his injuries resulted from the vessel’s unseaworthiness and from Pope & Talbot’s negligence. In answering, Pope & Talbot denied both charges and set up contributory negligence as a defense to each. In addition, Pope & Talbot brought in Hawn’s employer Haenn as a third party defendant, alleging that Haenn’s negligence had caused Hawn’s injury and claiming recovery over against Haenn by way of contribution or indemnity. A jury found that the ship was unseaworthy, that Pope & Talbot had been negligent, that Haenn had been negligent and that Hawn’s own negligence had contributed 17%% of his damages. On this basis, the court entered judgment for Hawn against Pope & Talbot for $29,700,17%% less than the $36,000 at which the jury had fixed his damages. A judgment for contribution by Haenn to Pope & Talbot was also entered. 99 F. Supp. 226, 100 F. Supp. 338. The Court of Appeals affirmed Hawn’s judgment against Pope & Talbot. It reversed the judgment of contribution against Haenn. 198 F. 2d 800. This Court granted certiorari. 345 TJ. S. 990.
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for contribution by Haenn on the basis of our holding in Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp., 342 U. S. 282. In that case we held that contribution could not be exacted under circumstances like those here involved. For that reason we affirm the Court of Appeals reversal of the District Court’s judgment against Haenn and proceed to a consideration of the several questions presented by Pope & Talbot as grounds for attack on Hawn’s judgment.
First. Petitioner urges that the jury finding of contributory negligence should have been accepted as a complete bar to Hawn’s recovery. The contention appears to rest on two separate bases: (a) Admiralty has not developed any definite rule as to the effect of contributory negligence, and therefore the common-law rule under which contributory negligence bars recovery should govern in admiralty, (b) Pennsylvania law controls this case and under that state’s law any contributory negligence of an injured person is an insuperable bar to his recovery.
(a) The harsh rule of the common law under which contributory negligence wholly barred an injured person from recovery is completely incompatible with modern admiralty policy and practice. Exercising its traditional discretion, admiralty has developed and now follows its own fairer and more flexible rule which allows such consideration of contributory negligence in mitigation of damages as justice requires. Petitioner presents no persuasive arguments that admiralty should now adopt a discredited doctrine which automatically destroys all claims of injured persons who have contributed to their injuries in any degree, however slight.
(b) Nor can we agree that Hawn’s rights must be determined by the law of Pennsylvania, under which, it is said, any contributory negligence would bar all recovery in this personal injury action. True, Hawn was hurt inside Pennsylvania and ordinarily his rights would be determined by Pennsylvania law. But he was injured on navigable waters while working on a ship to enable it to complete its loading for safer transportation of its cargo by water. Consequently, the basis of Hawn’s action is a maritime tort, a type of action which the Constitution has placed under national power to control in “its substantive as well as its procedural features . . . .” Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375, 386. And Hawn’s complaint asserted no claim created by or arising out of Pennsylvania law. His right of recovery for unseaworthiness and negligence is rooted in federal maritime law. Even if Hawn were seeking to enforce a state created remedy for this right, federal maritime law would be controlling. While states may sometimes supplement federal maritime policies, a state may not deprive a person of any substantial admiralty rights as defined in controlling acts of Congress or by interpretative decisions of this Court. These principles have been frequently declared and we adhere to them. See e. g., Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U. S. 239, 243-246, and cases there cited. Caldarola v. Eckert, 332 U. S. 155, does not support the contention that a state which undertakes to enforce federally created maritime rights can dilute claims fashioned by federal power, which is dominant in this field.
Another argument is that Pennsylvania law must govern here because the District Court’s jurisdiction was rested on diversity of citizenship under 28 U. S. C. § 1332. For this contention the principle established in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, is invoked. That case decided that federal district diversity courts must try state created causes of action in accordance with state laws. This ended a long-standing federal court practice under which the outcome of lawsuits to enforce state created causes of action often depended on whether they were tried in a state courthouse or a federal courthouse. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins was thus designed to ensure that litigants with the same kind of case would have their rights measured by the same legal standards of liability. It appears to be contended here, however, that one injured on navigable waters who sues in federal court under diversity jurisdiction somehow jeopardizes his right to have as full a recovery as he otherwise would. It is certainly contended that one who sues on the “law side” of the docket has much less chance to recover than one who sues on the “admiralty side.” Thus we are asked to use the Erie-Tompkins case to bring about the same kind of unfairness it was designed to end. Once again, the substantial rights of parties would depend on which courthouse, or even on which “side” of the same courthouse, a lawyer might guess to be in the best interests of his client. We decline to depart from the principle of equal justice embodied in the Erie-Tompkins doctrine. Of course the substantial rights of an injured person are not to be determined differently whether his case is labelled “law side” or “admiralty side” on a district court’s docket. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85, 88-89. The District Court and Court of Appeals correctly refused to deny Hawn’s federal right of recovery by applying the Pennsylvania contributory negligence rule.
Second. Haenn has been making compensation payments to Hawn because of obligations imposed by the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 44 Stat. 1424, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. Hawn has agreed to refund these payments to his employer out of his Pope & Talbot recovery. Pope & Talbot contends that the judgment against it should be reduced by this amount. It points out that Hawn’s verdict includes sums for past loss of wages and medical expenses which it is argued were the very items on account of which Hawn’s employer paid him. Consequently Pope & Talbot says that if Hawn keeps the money he will have a double recovery and that to allow him to repay Haenn would give an unconscionable reward to an employer whose negligence contributed to the injury. A weakness in this ingenious argument is that § 33 of the Act has specific provisions to permit an employer to recoup his compensation payments out of any recovery from a third person negligently causing such injuries. Pope & Talbot’s contention if accepted would frustrate this purpose to protect employers who are subjected to absolute liability by the Act. Moreover, reduction of Pope & Talbot’s liability at the expense of Haenn would be the substantial equivalent of contribution which we declined to require in the Halcyon case.
Third. We are asked to reverse this judgment by overruling our holding in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85. Sieracki, an employee of an independent stevedoring company, was injured on a ship while working as a stevedore loading the cargo. We held that he could recover from the shipowner because of unseaworthiness of the ship or its appliances. We decided this over strong protest that such a holding would be an unwarranted extension of the doctrine of seaworthiness to workers other than seamen. That identical argument is repeated here. We reject it again and adhere to Sieracki. We are asked, however, to distinguish this case from our holding there. It is pointed out that Sieracki was a “stevedore.” Hawn was not. And Hawn was not loading the vessel. On these grounds we are asked to deny Hawn the protection we held the law gave Sieracki. These slight differences in fact cannot fairly justify the distinction urged as between the two cases. Sieracki’s legal protection was not based on the name “stevedore” but on the type of work he did and its relationship to the ship and to the historic doctrine of seaworthiness. The ship on which Hawn was hurt was being loaded when the grain loading equipment developed a slight defect. Hawn was put to work on it so that the loading could go on at once. There he was hurt. His need for protection from unseaworthiness was neither more nor less than that of the stevedores then working with him on the ship or of seamen who had been or were about to go on a voyage. All were subjected to the same danger. All were entitled to like treatment under law.
Fourth. A concurring opinion here raises a question concerning the right of Hawn to recover for negligence — a question neither presented nor urged by Pope & Talbot. It argues that the Sieracki case, by sustaining the right of persons like Hawn to sue for unseaworthiness, placed them in the category of “seamen” who cannot, under The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, maintain a negligence action against the shipowner. The Osceola held that a crew member employed by the ship could not recover from his employer for negligence of the master or the crew member’s “fellow servants.” Recoveries of crew members were limited to actions for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. But Hawn was not a crew member. He was not employed by the ship. The ship’s crew were not his fellow servants. Having no contract of employment with the shipowner, he was not entitled to maintenance and cure. The fact that Sieracki upheld the right of workers like Hawn to recover for unseaworthiness does not justify an argument that the Court thereby blotted out their long-recognized right to recover in admiralty for negligence. Neither the holding nor what was said in Sieracki could support such a contention. In fact, the dissent in Sieracki appears to have been predicated on an objection to adding unseaworthiness to the existing right to recover for negligence. It would be strange indeed to hold now that a decision which over the dissent recognized unseaworthiness as an additional right of persons injured on shipboard had unwittingly deprived them of all right to maintain actions for negligence.
Affirmed.
E. g., The Max Morris, 137 U. S. 1; The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U. S. 110, 122, and cases cited; Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, 305 U. S. 424, 428-429; Jacob v. New York City, 315 U. S. 752, 755; and compare Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U. S. 239, 244-245, with Belden v. Chase, 150 U. S. 674.
Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 61-63.
See e. g., Just v. Chambers, 312 U. S. 383, 387-392; Kelly v. Washington, 302 U. S. 1, 13.
The complaint shows diversity which is sufficient to support jurisdiction of the District Court. The complaint also shows that the claim rests on a maritime tort which under the Constitution is subject to dominant control of the Federal Government. In this situation we need not decide whether the District Court’s jurisdiction can be rested on 28 U. S. C. § 1331 as arising “under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” See Doucette v. Vincent, 194 F. 2d 834, and Jansson v. Swedish American Line, 185 F. 2d 212. Cf. Jordine v. Walling, 185 F. 2d 662.
Of a somewhat similar contention this Court said that it did not regard certain words in the Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688, “as meaning that the seaman may have the benefit of the new rules if he sues on the law side of the court, but not if he sues on the admiralty side. Such a distinction would be so unreasonable that we are unwilling to attribute to Congress a purpose to make it.” Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375, 391.
Illustrative of the unbroken line of federal cases holding that persons working on ships for independent contractors or persons rightfully transacting business on ships can recover for damages due to shipowners’ negligence are: Leathers v. Blessing, 105 U. S. 626 (1882); The Max Morris, 137 U. S. 1 (1890); Gerrity v. The Bark Kate Cann, 2 F. 241 (1880); The Helios, 12 F. 732 (1882), decision by Judge Addison Brown; Grays Harbor Stevedore Co. v. Fountain, 5 F. 2d 385 (1925); Tide Water Associated Oil Co. v. Richardson, 169 F. 2d 802 (1948); Brady v. Roosevelt S. S. Co., 317 U. S. 575, 577 (1943). See also cases collected in 44 A. L. R. 1025-1034.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Kim Millbrook, a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), alleges that correctional officers sexually assaulted and verbally threatened him while he was in their custody. Millbrook filed suit in Federal District Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 - 2680 (FTCA or Act), which waives the Government's sovereign immunity from tort suits, including those based on certain intentional torts committed by federal law enforcement officers, § 2680(h). The District Court dismissed Millbrook's action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that, while the FTCA waives the United States' sovereign immunity for certain intentional torts by law enforcement officers, it only does so when the tortious conduct occurs in the course of executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest. Petitioner contends that the FTCA's waiver is not so limited. We agree and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
A
The FTCA "was designed primarily to remove the sovereign immunity of the United States from suits in tort." Levin v. United States, 568 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1224, 1228, 185 L.Ed.2d 343 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Act gives federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over claims against the United States for "injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of a federal employee "acting within the scope of his office or employment." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). This broad waiver of sovereign immunity is subject to a number of exceptions set forth in § 2680. One such exception, relating to intentional torts, preserves the Government's immunity from suit for "[a]ny claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights." § 2680(h). We have referred to § 2680(h) as the "intentional tort exception." Levin, supra, at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1227-1228 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In 1974, Congress carved out an exception to § 2680(h)'s preservation of the United States' sovereign immunity for intentional torts by adding a proviso covering claims that arise out of the wrongful conduct of law enforcement officers. See Act of Mar. 16, 1974, Pub. L. 93-253, § 2, 88 Stat. 50. Known as the "law enforcement proviso," this provision extends the waiver of sovereign immunity to claims for six intentional torts, including assault and battery, that are based on the "acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers." § 2680(h). The proviso defines " 'investigative or law enforcement officer' " to mean "any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law." Ibid.
B
On January 18, 2011, Millbrook filed suit against the United States under the FTCA, asserting claims of negligence, assault, and battery. In his complaint, Millbrook alleged that, on March 5, 2010, he was forced to perform oral sex on a BOP correctional officer, while another officer held him in a choke hold and a third officer stood watch nearby. Millbrook claimed that the officers threatened to kill him if he did not comply with their demands. Millbrook alleged that he suffered physical injuries as a result of the incident and, accordingly, sought compensatory damages.
The Government argued that the FTCA did not waive the United States' sovereign immunity from suit on Millbrook's intentional tort claims, because they fell within the intentional tort exception in § 2680(h). The Government contended that § 2680(h)'s law enforcement proviso did not save Millbrook's claims because of the Third Circuit's binding precedent in Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868 (1986), which interpreted the proviso to apply only to tortious conduct that occurred during the course of "executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest." Id., at 872. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment for the United States because the alleged conduct "did not take place during an arrest, search, or seizure of evidence." Civ. Action No. 3:11-cv-00131, 2012 WL 526000 (M.D.Pa., Feb. 16, 2012), App. 96.
The Third Circuit affirmed. 477 Fed.Appx. 4, 5-6 (2012) (per curiam ).
We granted certiorari, 567 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 98, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2012), to resolve a Circuit split concerning the circumstances under which intentionally tortious conduct by law enforcement officers can give rise to an actionable claim under the FTCA. Compare Pooler,supra ; and Orsay v. United States Dept. of Justice, 289 F.3d 1125, 1136 (C.A.9 2002) (law enforcement proviso "reaches only those claims asserting that the tort occurred in the course of investigative or law enforcement activities " (emphasis added)); with Ignacio v. United States, 674 F.3d 252, 256 (C.A.4 2012) (holding that the law enforcement proviso "waives immunity whenever an investigative or law enforcement officer commits one of the specified intentional torts, regardless of whether the officer is engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity " (emphasis added)).
II
The FTCA waives the United States' sovereign immunity for certain intentional torts committed by law enforcement officers. The portion of the Act relevant here provides:
"The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to-
. . . . .
"(h) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights: Provided, That, with regard to acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government, the provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall apply to any claim arising ... out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution." 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).
On its face, the law enforcement proviso applies where a claim both arises out of one of the proviso's six intentional torts, and is related to the "acts or omissions" of an "investigative or law enforcement officer." The proviso's cross-reference to § 1346(b) incorporates an additional requirement that the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occur while the officer is "acting within the scope of his office or employment." § 1346(b)(1). The question in this case is whether the FTCA further limits the category of "acts or omissions" that trigger the United States' liability.
The plain language of the law enforcement proviso answers when a law enforcement officer's "acts or omissions" may give rise to an actionable tort claim under the FTCA. The proviso specifies that the conduct must arise from one of the six enumerated intentional torts and, by expressly cross-referencing § 1346(b), indicates that the law enforcement officer's "acts or omissions" must fall "within the scope of his office or employment." §§ 2680(h), 1346(b)(1). Nothing in the text further qualifies the category of "acts or omissions" that may trigger FTCA liability.
A number of lower courts have nevertheless read into the text additional limitations designed to narrow the scope of the law enforcement proviso. The Ninth Circuit, for instance, held that the law enforcement proviso does not apply unless the tort was "committed in the course of investigative or law enforcement activities." Orsay, supra, at 1135. As noted, the Third Circuit construed the law enforcement proviso even more narrowly in holding that it applies only to tortious conduct by federal officers during the course of "executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest." Pooler, 787 F.2d, at 872. Court-appointed amicus curiae (Amicus ) similarly asks us to construe the proviso to waive "sovereign immunity only for torts committed by federal officers acting in their capacity as 'investigative or law enforcement officers.' " Brief for Amicus 5. Under this approach, the conduct of federal officers would be actionable only when it "aris[es] out of searches, seizures of evidence, arrests, and closely related exercises of investigative or law-enforcement authority." Ibid.
None of these interpretations finds any support in the text of the statute. The FTCA's only reference to "searches," "seiz[ures of] evidence," and "arrests" is found in the statutory definition of "investigative or law enforcement officer." § 2680(h) (defining " 'investigative or law enforcement officer' " to mean any federal officer who is "empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law"). By its terms, this provision focuses on the status of persons whose conduct may be actionable, not the types of activities that may give rise to a tort claim against the United States. The proviso thus distinguishes between the acts for which immunity is waived (e.g., assault and battery), and the class of persons whose acts may give rise to an actionable FTCA claim. The plain text confirms that Congress intended immunity determinations to depend on a federal officer's legal authority, not on a particular exercise of that authority. Consequently, there is no basis for concluding that a law enforcement officer's intentional tort must occur in the course of executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest in order to subject the United States to liability.
Nor does the text of the proviso provide any indication that the officer must be engaged in "investigative or law enforcement activity." Indeed, the text never uses the term. Amicus contends that we should read the reference to "investigative or law-enforcement officer" as implicitly limiting the proviso to claims arising from actions taken in an officer's investigative or law enforcement capacity . But there is no basis for so limiting the term when Congress has spoken directly to the circumstances in which a law enforcement officer's conduct may expose the United States to tort liability. Under the proviso, an intentional tort is not actionable unless it occurs while the law enforcement officer is "acting within the scope of his office or employment." §§ 2680(h), 1346(b)(1). Had Congress intended to further narrow the scope of the proviso, Congress could have limited it to claims arising from "acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers acting in a law enforcement or investigative capacity ." See Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 227, 128 S.Ct. 831, 169 L.Ed.2d 680 (2008). Congress adopted similar limitations in neighboring provisions, see § 2680(a) (referring to "[a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government ... in the execution of a statute or regulation " (emphasis added)), but did not do so here. We, therefore, decline to read such a limitation into unambiguous text. Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 118, 129 S.Ct. 681, 172 L.Ed.2d 475 (2009) ("[W]hen the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms"); Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450, 122 S.Ct. 941, 151 L.Ed.2d 908 (2002) ("The inquiry ceases if the statutory language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
* * *
We hold that the waiver effected by the law enforcement proviso extends to acts or omissions of law enforcement officers that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Because no party defends the judgment, we appointed Jeffrey S. Bucholtz to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1224, 185 L.Ed.2d 343 (2012). Amicus Bucholtz has ably discharged his assigned responsibilities, and the Court thanks him for his well-stated arguments.
The District Court also concluded that Millbrook failed to state an actionable negligence claim because "it is clear that the alleged assault and battery was intentional." App. 96. This issue is not before us.
The Government conceded in the proceedings below that the correctional officer whose alleged conduct is at issue was acting within the scope of his employment and that the named correctional officers qualify as "investigative or law enforcement officers" within the meaning of the FTCA. App. 54-55, 84-85; Brief for United States 30. Accordingly, we express no opinion on either of these issues.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act adopts a series of interlocking reforms designed to expand coverage in the individual health insurance market. First, the Act bars insurers from taking a person's health into account when deciding whether to sell health insurance or how much to charge. Second, the Act generally requires each person to maintain insurance coverage or make a payment to the Internal Revenue Service. And third, the Act gives tax credits to certain people to make insurance more affordable.
In addition to those reforms, the Act requires the creation of an "Exchange" in each State-basically, a marketplace that allows people to compare and purchase insurance plans. The Act gives each State the opportunity to establish its own Exchange, but provides that the Federal Government will establish the Exchange if the State does not.
This case is about whether the Act's interlocking reforms apply equally in each State no matter who establishes the State's Exchange. Specifically, the question presented is whether the Act's tax credits are available in States that have a Federal Exchange.
I
A
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 124 Stat. 119, grew out of a long history of failed health insurance reform. In the 1990s, several States began experimenting with ways to expand people's access to coverage. One common approach was to impose a pair of insurance market regulations -a "guaranteed issue" requirement, which barred insurers from denying coverage to any person because of his health, and a "community rating" requirement, which barred insurers from charging a person higher premiums for the same reason. Together, those requirements were designed to ensure that anyone who wanted to buy health insurance could do so.
The guaranteed issue and community rating requirements achieved that goal, but they had an unintended consequence: They encouraged people to wait until they got sick to buy insurance. Why buy insurance coverage when you are healthy, if you can buy the same coverage for the same price when you become ill? This consequence-known as "adverse selection"-led to a second: Insurers were forced to increase premiums to account for the fact that, more and more, it was the sick rather than the healthy who were buying insurance. And that consequence fed back into the first: As the cost of insurance rose, even more people waited until they became ill to buy it.
This led to an economic "death spiral." As premiums rose higher and higher, and the number of people buying insurance sank lower and lower, insurers began to leave the market entirely. As a result, the number of people without insurance increased dramatically.
This cycle happened repeatedly during the 1990s. For example, in 1993, the State of Washington reformed its individual insurance market by adopting the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements. Over the next three years, premiums rose by 78 percent and the number of people enrolled fell by 25 percent. By 1999, 17 of the State's 19 private insurers had left the market, and the remaining two had announced their intention to do so. Brief for America's Health Insurance Plans as Amicus Curiae 10-11.
For another example, also in 1993, New York adopted the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements. Over the next few years, some major insurers in the individual market raised premiums by roughly 40 percent. By 1996, these reforms had "effectively eliminated the commercial individual indemnity market in New York with the largest individual health insurer exiting the market." L. Wachenheim & H. Leida, The Impact of Guaranteed Issue and Community Rating Reforms on States' Individual Insurance Markets 38 (2012).
In 1996, Massachusetts adopted the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements and experienced similar results. But in 2006, Massachusetts added two more reforms: The Commonwealth required individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty, and it gave tax credits to certain individuals to ensure that they could afford the insurance they were required to buy. Brief for Bipartisan Economic Scholars as Amici Curiae 24-25. The combination of these three reforms-insurance market regulations, a coverage mandate, and tax credits-reduced the uninsured rate in Massachusetts to 2.6 percent, by far the lowest in the Nation. Hearing on Examining Individual State Experiences with Health Care Reform Coverage Initiatives in the Context of National Reform before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (2009).
B
The Affordable Care Act adopts a version of the three key reforms that made the Massachusetts system successful. First, the Act adopts the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements. The Act provides that "each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual... market in a State must accept every... individual in the State that applies for such coverage." 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-1(a). The Act also bars insurers from charging higher premiums on the basis of a person's health. § 300gg.
Second, the Act generally requires individuals to maintain health insurance coverage or make a payment to the IRS. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A. Congress recognized that, without an incentive, "many individuals would wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care." 42 U.S.C. § 18091(2)(I). So Congress adopted a coverage requirement to "minimize this adverse selection and broaden the health insurance risk pool to include healthy individuals, which will lower health insurance premiums." Ibid. In Congress's view, that coverage requirement was "essential to creating effective health insurance markets." Ibid. Congress also provided an exemption from the coverage requirement for anyone who has to spend more than eight percent of his income on health insurance.
26 U.S.C. §§ 5000A(e)(1)(A), (e)(1)(B)(ii).
Third, the Act seeks to make insurance more affordable by giving refundable tax credits to individuals with household incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line. § 36B. Individuals who meet the Act's requirements may purchase insurance with the tax credits, which are provided in advance directly to the individual's insurer. 42 U.S.C. §§ 18081, 18082.
These three reforms are closely intertwined. As noted, Congress found that the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements would not work without the coverage requirement. § 18091(2)(I). And the coverage requirement would not work without the tax credits. The reason is that, without the tax credits, the cost of buying insurance would exceed eight percent of income for a large number of individuals, which would exempt them from the coverage requirement. Given the relationship between these three reforms, the Act provided that they should take effect on the same day-January 1, 2014. See Affordable Care Act, § 1253, redesignated § 1255, 124 Stat. 162, 895; §§ 1401(e), 1501(d), id., at 220, 249.
C
In addition to those three reforms, the Act requires the creation of an "Exchange" in each State where people can shop for insurance, usually online. 42 U.S.C. § 18031(b)(1). An Exchange may be created in one of two ways. First, the Act provides that "[e]ach State shall... establish an American Health Benefit Exchange... for the State." Ibid. Second, if a State nonetheless chooses not to establish its own Exchange, the Act provides that the Secretary of Health and Human Services "shall... establish and operate such Exchange within the State." § 18041(c)(1).
The issue in this case is whether the Act's tax credits are available in States that have a Federal Exchange rather than a State Exchange. The Act initially provides that tax credits "shall be allowed" for any "applicable taxpayer." 26 U.S.C. § 36B(a). The Act then provides that the amount of the tax credit depends in part on whether the taxpayer has enrolled in an insurance plan through "an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [hereinafter 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]." 26 U.S.C. §§ 36B(b) - (c) (emphasis added).
The IRS addressed the availability of tax credits by promulgating a rule that made them available on both State and Federal Exchanges. 77 Fed.Reg. 30378 (2012). As relevant here, the IRS Rule provides that a taxpayer is eligible for a tax credit if he enrolled in an insurance plan through "an Exchange," 26 CFR § 1.36B-2 (2013), which is defined as "an Exchange serving the individual market... regardless of whether the Exchange is established and operated by a State... or by HHS," 45 CFR § 155.20 (2014). At this point, 16 States and the District of Columbia have established their own Exchanges; the other 34 States have elected to have HHS do so.
D
Petitioners are four individuals who live in Virginia, which has a Federal Exchange. They do not wish to purchase health insurance. In their view, Virginia's Exchange does not qualify as "an Exchange established by the State under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]," so they should not receive any tax credits. That would make the cost of buying insurance more than eight percent of their income, which would exempt them from the Act's coverage requirement. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(e)(1).
Under the IRS Rule, however, Virginia's Exchange would qualify as "an Exchange established by the State under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]," so petitioners would receive tax credits. That would make the cost of buying insurance less than eight percent of petitioners' income, which would subject them to the Act's coverage requirement. The IRS Rule therefore requires petitioners to either buy health insurance they do not want, or make a payment to the IRS.
Petitioners challenged the IRS Rule in Federal District Court. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that the Act unambiguously made tax credits available to individuals enrolled through a Federal Exchange. King v. Sebelius, 997 F.Supp.2d 415 (E.D.Va.2014). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 759 F.3d 358 (2014). The Fourth Circuit viewed the Act as "ambiguous and subject to at least two different interpretations." Id., at 372. The court therefore deferred to the IRS's interpretation under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). 759 F.3d, at 376.
The same day that the Fourth Circuit issued its decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the IRS Rule in a different case, holding that the Act "unambiguously restricts" the tax credits to State Exchanges. Halbig v. Burwell, 758 F.3d 390, 394 (2014). We granted certiorari in the present case. 574 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 475, 190 L.Ed.2d 355 (2014).
II
The Affordable Care Act addresses tax credits in what is now Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code. That section provides: "In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle... an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount." 26 U.S.C. § 36B(a). Section 36B then defines the term "premium assistance credit amount" as "the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year." § 36B(b)(1) (emphasis added). Section 36B goes on to define the two italicized terms-"premium assistance amount" and "coverage month"-in part by referring to an insurance plan that is enrolled in through "an Exchange established by the State under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]." 26 U.S.C. §§ 36B (b)(2)(A), (c)(2)(A)(i).
The parties dispute whether Section 36B authorizes tax credits for individuals who enroll in an insurance plan through a Federal Exchange. Petitioners argue that a Federal Exchange is not "an Exchange established by the State under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]," and that the IRS Rule therefore contradicts Section 36B. Brief for Petitioners 18-20. The Government responds that the IRS Rule is lawful because the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]" should be read to include Federal Exchanges. Brief for Respondents 20-25.
When analyzing an agency's interpretation of a statute, we often apply the two-step framework announced in Chevron, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694. Under that framework, we ask whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable. Id., at 842-843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. This approach "is premised on the theory that a statute's ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps." FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000). "In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation." Ibid.
This is one of those cases. The tax credits are among the Act's key reforms, involving billions of dollars in spending each year and affecting the price of health insurance for millions of people. Whether those credits are available on Federal Exchanges is thus a question of deep "economic and political significance" that is central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 2444, 189 L.Ed.2d 372 (2014) (quoting Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S., at 160, 120 S.Ct. 1291 ). It is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no expertise in crafting health insurance policy of this sort. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 266-267, 126 S.Ct. 904, 163 L.Ed.2d 748 (2006). This is not a case for the IRS.
It is instead our task to determine the correct reading of Section 36B. If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms. Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242, 251, 130 S.Ct. 2149, 176 L.Ed.2d 998 (2010). But oftentimes the "meaning-or ambiguity-of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context." Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S., at 132, 120 S.Ct. 1291. So when deciding whether the language is plain, we must read the words "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Id., at 133, 120 S.Ct. 1291 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our duty, after all, is "to construe statutes, not isolated provisions." Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280, 290, 130 S.Ct. 1396, 176 L.Ed.2d 225 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A
We begin with the text of Section 36B. As relevant here, Section 36B allows an individual to receive tax credits only if the individual enrolls in an insurance plan through "an Exchange established by the State under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]." In other words, three things must be true: First, the individual must enroll in an insurance plan through "an Exchange." Second, that Exchange must be "established by the State." And third, that Exchange must be established "under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]." We address each requirement in turn.
First, all parties agree that a Federal Exchange qualifies as "an Exchange" for purposes of Section 36B. See Brief for Petitioners 22; Brief for Respondents 22. Section 18031 provides that "[e]ach State shall... establish an American Health Benefit Exchange... for the State." § 18031(b)(1). Although phrased as a requirement, the Act gives the States "flexibility" by allowing them to "elect" whether they want to establish an Exchange. § 18041(b). If the State chooses not to do so, Section 18041 provides that the Secretary "shall... establish and operate such Exchange within the State." § 18041(c)(1) (emphasis added).
By using the phrase "such Exchange," Section 18041 instructs the Secretary to establish and operate the same Exchange that the State was directed to establish under Section 18031. See Black's Law Dictionary 1661 (10th ed. 2014) (defining "such" as "That or those; having just been mentioned"). In other words, State Exchanges and Federal Exchanges are equivalent-they must meet the same requirements, perform the same functions, and serve the same purposes. Although State and Federal Exchanges are established by different sovereigns, Sections 18031 and 18041 do not suggest that they differ in any meaningful way. A Federal Exchange therefore counts as "an Exchange" under Section 36B.
Second, we must determine whether a Federal Exchange is "established by the State" for purposes of Section 36B. At the outset, it might seem that a Federal Exchange cannot fulfill this requirement. After all, the Act defines "State" to mean "each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia"-a definition that does not include the Federal Government. 42 U.S.C. § 18024(d). But when read in context, "with a view to [its] place in the overall statutory scheme," the meaning of the phrase "established by the State" is not so clear. Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S., at 133, 120 S.Ct. 1291 (internal quotation marks omitted).
After telling each State to establish an Exchange, Section 18031 provides that all Exchanges "shall make available qualified health plans to qualified individuals." 42 U.S.C. § 18031(d)(2)(A). Section 18032 then defines the term "qualified individual" in part as an individual who "resides in the State that established the Exchange." § 18032(f)(1)(A). And that's a problem: If we give the phrase "the State that established the Exchange" its most natural meaning, there would be no "qualified individuals" on Federal Exchanges. But the Act clearly contemplates that there will be qualified individuals on every Exchange. As we just mentioned, the Act requires all Exchanges to "make available qualified health plans to qualified individuals"-something an Exchange could not do if there were no such individuals. § 18031(d)(2)(A). And the Act tells the Exchange, in deciding which health plans to offer, to consider "the interests of qualified individuals... in the State or States in which such Exchange operates"-again, something the Exchange could not do if qualified individuals did not exist. § 18031(e)(1)(B). This problem arises repeatedly throughout the Act. See, e.g., § 18031(b)(2) (allowing a State to create "one Exchange... for providing... services to both qualified individuals and qualified small employers," rather than creating separate Exchanges for those two groups).
These provisions suggest that the Act may not always use the phrase "established by the State" in its most natural sense. Thus, the meaning of that phrase may not be as clear as it appears when read out of context.
Third, we must determine whether a Federal Exchange is established "under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]." This too might seem a requirement that a Federal Exchange cannot fulfill, because it is Section 18041 that tells the Secretary when to "establish and operate such Exchange." But here again, the way different provisions in the statute interact suggests otherwise.
The Act defines the term "Exchange" to mean "an American Health Benefit Exchange established under section 18031." § 300gg-91(d)(21). If we import that definition into Section 18041, the Act tells the Secretary to "establish and operate such 'American Health Benefit Exchange established under section 18031.' " That suggests that Section 18041 authorizes the Secretary to establish an Exchange under Section 18031, not (or not only) under Section 18041. Otherwise, the Federal Exchange, by definition, would not be an "Exchange" at all. See Halbig, 758 F.3d, at 399-400 (acknowledging that the Secretary establishes Federal Exchanges under Section 18031 ).
This interpretation of "under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]" fits best with the statutory context. All of the requirements that an Exchange must meet are in Section 18031, so it is sensible to regard all Exchanges as established under that provision. In addition, every time the Act uses the word "Exchange," the definitional provision requires that we substitute the phrase "Exchange established under section 18031." If Federal Exchanges were not established under Section 18031, therefore, literally none of the Act's requirements would apply to them. Finally, the Act repeatedly uses the phrase "established under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]" in situations where it would make no sense to distinguish between State and Federal Exchanges. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 125(f)(3)(A) (2012 ed., Supp. I) ("The term 'qualified benefit' shall not include any qualified health plan... offered through an Exchange established under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]"); 26 U.S.C. § 6055(b)(1)(B)(iii)(I) (2012 ed.) (requiring insurers to report whether each insurance plan they provided "is a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange established under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]"). A Federal Exchange may therefore be considered one established "under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]."
The upshot of all this is that the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]" is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges-both State and Federal-at least for purposes of the tax credits. If a State chooses not to follow the directive in Section 18031 that it establish an Exchange, the Act tells the Secretary to establish "such Exchange." § 18041. And by using the words "such Exchange," the Act indicates that State and Federal Exchanges should be the same. But State and Federal Exchanges would differ in a fundamental way if tax credits were available only on State Exchanges-one type of Exchange would help make insurance more affordable by providing billions of dollars to the States' citizens; the other type of Exchange would not.
The conclusion that Section 36B is ambiguous is further supported by several provisions that assume tax credits will be available on both State and Federal Exchanges. For example, the Act requires all Exchanges to create outreach programs that must "distribute fair and impartial information concerning... the availability of premium tax credits under section 36B." § 18031(i)(3)(B). The Act also requires all Exchanges to "establish and make available by electronic means a calculator to determine the actual cost of coverage after the application of any premium tax credit under section 36B." § 18031(d)(4)(G). And the Act requires all Exchanges to report to the Treasury Secretary information about each health plan they sell, including the "aggregate amount of any advance payment of such credit," "[a]ny information... necessary to determine eligibility for, and the amount of, such credit," and any "[i]nformation necessary to determine whether a taxpayer has received excess advance payments." 26 U.S.C. § 36B(f)(3). If tax credits were not available on Federal Exchanges, these provisions would make little sense.
Petitioners and the dissent respond that the words "established by the State" would be unnecessary if Congress meant to extend tax credits to both State and Federal Exchanges. Brief for Petitioners 20; post, at 2497 - 2498. But "our preference for avoiding surplusage constructions is not absolute." Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 536, 124 S.Ct. 1023, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004) ; see also Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1166, 1177, 185 L.Ed.2d 242 (2013) ("The canon against surplusage is not an absolute rule"). And specifically with respect to this Act, rigorous application of the canon does not seem a particularly useful guide to a fair construction of the statute.
The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. (To cite just one, the Act creates three separate Section 1563s. See 124 Stat. 270, 911, 912.) Several features of the Act's passage contributed to that unfortunate reality. Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through "the traditional legislative process." Cannan, A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes Legislative History, 105 L. Lib. J. 131, 163 (2013). And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as "reconciliation," which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate's normal 60-vote filibuster requirement. Id., at 159-167. As a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation. Cf. Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 545 (1947) (describing a cartoon "in which a senator tells his colleagues 'I admit this new bill is too complicated to understand. We'll just have to pass it to find out what it means.' ").
Anyway, we "must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Utility Air Regulatory Group, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2441 (internal quotation marks omitted). After reading Section 36B along with other related provisions in the Act, we cannot conclude that the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [ Section 18031 ]" is unambiguous.
B
Given that the text is ambiguous, we must turn to the broader structure of the Act to determine the meaning of Section 36B. "A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme... because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law." United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988). Here, the statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners' interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very "death spirals" that Congress designed the Act to avoid. See New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405, 419-420, 93 S.Ct. 2507, 37 L.Ed.2d 688 (1973) ("We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes.").
As discussed above, Congress based the Affordable Care Act on three major reforms: first, the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements; second, a requirement that individuals maintain health insurance coverage or make a payment to the IRS; and third, the tax credits for individuals with household incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line. In a State that establishes its own Exchange, these three reforms work together to expand insurance coverage. The guaranteed issue and community rating requirements ensure that anyone can buy insurance; the coverage requirement creates an incentive for people to do so before they get sick; and the tax credits-it is hoped-make insurance more affordable. Together, those reforms "minimize... adverse selection and broaden the health insurance risk pool to include healthy individuals, which will lower health insurance premiums." 42 U.S.C. § 18091(2)(I).
Under petitioners' reading, however, the Act would operate quite differently in a State with a Federal Exchange. As they see it, one of the Act's three major reforms-the tax credits-would not apply. And a second major reform-the coverage requirement-would not apply in a meaningful way. As explained earlier, the coverage requirement applies only when the cost of buying health insurance (minus the amount of the tax credits) is less than eight percent of an individual's income. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5000A(e)(1)(A), (e)(1)(B)(ii). So without the tax credits, the coverage requirement would apply to fewer individuals. And it would be a lot fewer. In 2014, approximately 87 percent of people who bought insurance on a Federal Exchange did so with tax credits, and virtually all of those people would become exempt. HHS, A. Burke, A. Misra, & S. Sheingold, Premium Affordability, Competition, and Choice in the Health Insurance Marketplace 5 (2014); Brief for Bipartisan Economic Scholars as Amici Curiae 19-20. If petitioners are right, therefore, only one of the Act's three major reforms would apply in States with a Federal Exchange.
The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a State's individual insurance market into a death spiral. One study predicts that premiums would increase by 47 percent and enrollment would decrease by 70 percent. E. Saltzman & C. Eibner, The Effect of Eliminating the Affordable Care Act's Tax Credits in Federally Facilitated Marketplaces (2015). Another study predicts that premiums would increase by 35 percent and enrollment would decrease by 69 percent. L. Blumberg, M. Buettgens, & J. Holahan, The Implications of a Supreme Court Finding for the Plaintiff in King vs. Burwell: 8.2 Million More Uninsured and 35% Higher Premiums (2015). And those effects would not be limited to individuals who purchase insurance on the Exchanges. Because the Act requires insurers to treat the entire individual market as a single risk pool, 42 U.S.C. § 18032(c)(1), premiums outside the Exchange would rise along with those inside the Exchange. Brief for Bipartisan Economic Scholars as Amici Curiae 11-12.
It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner. See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 2674, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012) (SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting) ("Without the federal subsidies... the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."). Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation. But those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and the tax credits. So it stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.
Petitioners respond that Congress was not worried about the effects of withholding tax credits from States with Federal Exchanges because "Congress evidently believed it was offering states a deal they would not refuse." Brief for Petitioners 36. Congress may have been wrong about the States' willingness to establish their own Exchanges, petitioners continue, but that does not allow this Court to rewrite the Act to fix that problem. That is particularly true, petitioners conclude, because the States likely would have created their own Exchanges in the absence of the IRS Rule, which eliminated any incentive that the States had to do so. Id., at 36-38.
Section 18041 refutes the argument that Congress believed it was offering the States a deal they would not refuse. That section provides that, if a State elects not to establish an Exchange, the Secretary "shall... establish and operate such Exchange within the State." 42 U.S.C. § 18041 (c)(1)(A). The whole point of that provision is to create a federal fallback in case a State chooses not to establish its own Exchange. Contrary to petitioners' argument, Congress did not believe it was offering States a deal they would not refuse-it expressly addressed what would happen if a State did refuse the deal.
C
Finally, the structure of Section 36B itself suggests that tax credits are not limited to State Exchanges. Section 36B(a) initially provides that tax credits "shall be allowed" for any "applicable taxpayer." Section 36B(c)(1) then defines an "applicable taxpayer" as someone who (among other things) has a household income between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line. Together, these two provisions appear to make anyone in the specified income range eligible to receive a tax credit.
According to petitioners, however, those provisions are an empty promise in States with a Federal Exchange. In their view, an applicable taxpayer in such a State would be eligible for a tax credit-but the amount of that tax credit would always be zero. And that is because-diving several layers down into the Tax Code- Section 36B says that the amount of the tax credits shall be "an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount," § 36B(a) ; and then says that the term "premium assistance credit amount" means "the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year," § 36B(b)(1) ; and then says that the term "premium assistance amount" is tied to the amount of the monthly premium for insurance purchased on "an Exchange established by the State under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]," § 36B(b)(2) ; and then says that the term "coverage month" means any month in which the taxpayer has insurance through "an Exchange established by the State under [ 42 U.S.C. § 18031 ]," § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i).
We have held that Congress "does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions." Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001). But in petitioners' view, Congress made the viability of the entire Affordable Care Act turn on the ultimate ancillary provision: a sub-sub-sub section of the Tax Code. We doubt that is what Congress meant to do. Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, for reconsideration in light of Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S. 511.
Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Harlan in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S., at 520, and Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493, 500.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 895, makes it unlawful to “discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary [of an employee benefit plan] for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1140. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that § 510 only prohibits interference with the attainment of rights that are capable of “vesting,” as that term is defined in ERISA. We disagree.
I
The individual petitioners are former employees of respondent Santa Fe Terminal Services, Inc. (SFTS), a wholly owned subsidiary of respondent The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. (ATSF), which was responsible for transferring cargo between railcars and trucks at ATSF’s Hobart Yard in Los Angeles, California. While petitioners were employed by SFTS, they were entitled to retirement benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1312, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 231 et seq., and to pension, health, and welfare benefits under collective bargaining agreements involving SFTS and the Teamsters Union. SFTS provided its workers with pension, health, and welfare benefits through employee benefit plans subject to ERISA’s comprehensive regulations.
In January 1990, ATSF entered into a formal “Service Agreement” with SFTS to have SFTS do the same “inter-modal” work it had done at the Hobart Yard for the previous 15 years without a contract. Seven weeks later, ATSF exercised its right to terminate the newly formed agreement and opened up the Hobart Yard work for competitive bidding. Respondent In-Terminal Services (ITS) was the successful bidder, and SFTS employees who declined to continue employment with ITS were terminated. ITS, unlike SFTS, was not obligated to make contributions to the Railroad Retirement Account under the Railroad Retirement Act. ITS also provided fewer pension and welfare benefits under its collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters Union than had SFTS. Workers who continued their employment with ITS “lost their Railroad Retirement Act benefits” and “suffered a substantial reduction in Teamsters benefits.” 80 F. 3d 348, 350 (CA9 1996) (per curiam).
Petitioners sued respondents SFTS, ATSF, and ITS in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that respondents had violated §510 of ERISA by “diseharg[ing]” petitioners “for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of . . . right[s] to which” they would have “become entitled” under the ERISA pension and welfare plans adopted pursuant to the SFTS-Teamsters collective bargaining agreement. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 29a, Complaint ¶ 33. Had SFTS remained their employer, petitioners contended, they would have been entitled to assert claims for benefits under the SFTS-Teamsters benefit plans, at least until the collective bargaining agreement that gave rise to those plans expired. The substitution of ITS for SFTS, however, precluded them from asserting those claims and relegated them to asserting claims under the less generous ITS-Teamsters benefit plans. According to petitioners, the substitution “interfer[ed] with the attainment” of their “right” to assert those claims and violated §510. Respondents moved to dismiss these §510 claims, and the District Court granted the motion.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. 80 F. 3d 348 (1996). The court reinstated petitioners’ claim under §510 for interference with their pension benefits, concluding that § 510 “ ‘protects plan participants from termination motivated by an employer’s desire to prevent a pension from vesting.’ ” Id., at 350-351 (quoting Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S. 133, 143 (1990)). But the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of petitioners’ claim for interference with their welfare benefits. “Unlike pension benefits,” the Court of Appeals observed, “welfare benefits do not vest.” 80 F. 3d, at 351. As a result, the Court of Appeals noted, “employers remain free to unilaterally amend or eliminate [welfare] plans,” and “employees have no present ‘right’ to future, anticipated welfare benefits.’ ” Ibid. (emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks omitted). Because the “existence of a present ‘right’ is [a] prerequisite to section 510 relief,” the Court of Appeals concluded that § 510 did not state a cause of action for interference with welfare benefits. Ibid. We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this issue, 519 U. S. 1003 (1996), and now vacate the decision below and remand.
II
The Court of Appeals’ holding that § 510 bars interference only with vested rights is contradicted by the plain language of § 510. As noted above, that section makes it unlawful to “discharge ... a [plan] participant or beneficiary ... for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1140 (emphasis added). ERISA defines a “plan” to include both “an employee welfare benefit plan [and] an employee pension benefit plan,” §1002(3), and specifically exempts “employee welfare benefit plants]” from its stringent vesting requirements, see § 1051(1). Because a “plan” includes an “employee welfare benefit plan,” and because welfare plans offer benefits that do not “vest” (at least insofar as ERISA is concerned), Congress’ use of the word “plan” in §510 all but forecloses the argument that §510’s interference clause applies only to “vested” rights. Had Congress intended to confine §510’s protection to “vested” rights, it could have easily substituted the term “pension plan,” see 29 U. S. C. § 1002(2), for “plan,” or the term “nonforfeitable” right, see §1002(19), for “any right.” But §510 draws no distinction between those rights that “vest” under ERISA and those that do not.
The right that an employer or plan sponsor may enjoy in some circumstances to unilaterally amend or eliminate its welfare benefit plan does not, as the Court of Appeals apparently thought, justify a departure from § 510’s plain language. It is true that ERISA itself “does not regulate the substantive content of welfare-benefit plans.” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724, 732 (1985). Thus, unless an employer contractually cedes its freedom, see, e. g., Adcox v. Teledyne, Inc., 21 F. 3d 1381, 1389 (CA6), cert. denied, 513 U. S. 871 (1994), it is “generally free under ERISA, for any reason at any time, to adopt, modify, or terminate [its] welfare pla[n].” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U. S. 73, 78 (1995).
The flexibility an employer enjoys to amend or eliminate its welfare plan is not an accident; Congress recognized that “requir[ing] the vesting of these ancillary benefits would seriously complicate the administration and increase the cost of plans.” S. Rep. No. 93-383, p. 51 (1973). Giving employers this flexibility also encourages them to offer more generous benefits at the outset, since they are free to reduce benefits should economic conditions sour. If employers were locked into the plans they initially offered, “they would err initially on the side of omission.” Heath v. Varity Corp., 71 F. 3d 256, 258 (CA7 1995). Section 510 counterbalances this flexibility by ensuring that employers do not “circumvent the provision of promised benefits.” Ingersoll-Rand Co., supra, at 143 (citing S. Rep. No. 93-127, pp. 35-36 (1973); H. R. Rep. No. 93-533, p. 17 (1973)). In short, “§510 helps to make promises credible.” Heath, supra, at 258. An employer may, of course, retain the unfettered right to alter its promises, but to do so it must follow the formal procedures set forth in the plan. See 29 U. S. C. § 1102(b)(3) (requiring plan to “provide a procedure for amending such plan”); Schoonejongen, supra, at 78 (observing that the “cognizable claim [under ERISA] is that the company did not [amend its welfare benefit plan] in a permissible manner”). Adherence to these formal procedures “increases the likelihood that proposed plan amendments, which are fairly serious events, are recognized as such and given the special consideration they deserve.” Schoonejongen, supra, at 82. The formal amendment process would be undermined if §510 did not apply because employers could “informally” amend their plans one participant at a time. Thus, the power to amend or abolish a welfare benefit plan does not include the power to “discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against” the plan’s participants and beneficiaries “for the purpose of interfering with [their] attainment of . . . right[s].. . under the plan.” To be sure, when an employer acts without this purpose, as could be the case when making fundamental business decisions, such actions are not barred by §510. But in the case where an employer acts with a purpose that triggers the protection of §510, any tension that might exist between an employer’s power to amend the plan and a participant’s rights under § 510 is the product of a careful balance of competing interests, and is most surely not the type of “absurd or glaringly unjust” result, Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 519 U. S. 248, 261 (1997), that would warrant departure from the plain language of § 510.
Respondents argue that the Court of Appeals’ decision must nevertheless be affirmed because §510, when applied to benefits that do not “vest,” only protects an employee’s right to cross the “threshold of eligibility” for welfare benefits. See Brief for Respondent Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. 18. In other words, argue respondents, an employee who is eligible to receive benefits under an ERISA welfare benefit plan has already “attainted]” her “right[s]” under the plan, so that any subsequent actions taken by an employer cannot, by definition, “interfer[e]” with the “attainment of . . . right[s]” under the plan. According to respondents, petitioners were eligible to receive welfare benefits under the SFTS-Teamsters plan at the time they were discharged, so they cannot state a claim under §510. The Court of Appeals’ approach precluded it from evaluating this argument, and others presented to us, and we see no reason not to allow it the first opportunity to consider these-matters on remand.
We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
See Shahid v. Ford Motor Co., 76 F. 3d 1404, 1411 (CA6 1996) (holding that § 510 draws no distinction between benefits that vest and those that do not); Heath v. Varity Corp., 71 F. 3d 256, 258 (CA7 1995) (same); Seaman v. Arvida Realty Sales, 985 F. 2d 543, 546 (CA11) (same), cert. denied, 510 U. S. 916 (1993); see also McGann v. H & H Music Co., 946 F. 2d 401, 408 (CA5 1991) (implying the same), cert. denied sub nom. Greenburg v. H & H Music Co., 506 U. S. 981 (1992); Andes v. Ford Motor Co., 70 F. 3d 1332, 1336 (CADC 1995) (implying the same).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Kagan
took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners are the owners and managing agents of two ships which are registered under the laws of Liberia and fly the Liberian flag. They sought injunctive relief in the state courts in Texas to bar picketing of their vessels by respondent unions. The trial court denied relief, finding that the dispute was “arguably” within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board and that the jurisdiction of the state courts was therefore pre-empted. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and we granted certiorari, 412 U. S. 927 (1973), to consider whether the activities here complained of were activities “affecting commerce” within the meaning of §§ 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 450, 29 U. S. C. §§ 152 (6) and (7). We hold that they were not, and therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.
I
The vessels Northwind and Theomana are ships of Liberian registry, carrying cargo between foreign ports and the United States. Northwind is owned by petitioner Westwind Africa Line, Ltd., a Liberian corporation, while Theomana is owned by petitioner SPS Bulkcarriers Corp., a Liberian corporation, and managed by petitioner Windward Shipping (London) Ltd., a British corporation. The crews of both vessels are composed entirely of foreign nationals, represented by foreign unions and employed under foreign articles of agreement.
Respondents are American maritime unions, apparently representing a substantial majority of American merchant seamen. Alarmed by an accelerating decline in the number of jobs available to their members, these unions agreed to undertake collective action against foreign vessels, which they saw as the major cause of their business recession. Specifically, these unions agreed to picket foreign ships, calling attention to the competitive advantage enjoyed by such vessels because of a difference between foreign and domestic seamen’s wages. All parties concede that such a difference does exist.
The picketing here occurred at the Port of Houston, Texas, in October 1971. Both Northwind and Theomana were docked within the port, and respondents established picket lines in front of each vessel. There were four pickets assigned to each vessel, carrying signs which read:
“ATTENTION TO THE PUBLIC THE WAGES AND BENEFITS PAID SEAMEN ABOARD THE VESSEL THEOMANA [NORTH-WIND] ARE SUBSTANDARD TO THOSE OF AMERICAN SEAMEN. THIS RESULTS IN EXTREME DAMAGE TO OUR WAGE STANDARDS AND LOSS OF OUR JOBS. PLEASE DO NOT PATRONIZE THIS VESSEL. HELP THE AMERICAN SEAMEN. WE HAVE NO DISPUTE WITH ANY OTHER VESSEL ON THIS SITE.”
[Printed names of the six unions.]
These signs were supplemented by pamphlets of similar import. The pickets were instructed not to discuss the picketing with anyone, and they appear to have followed their instructions.
The picketing, although neither obstructive nor violent, was not without effect. Longshoremen and other port workers refused to cross the picket lines to load and unload petitioners’ vessels. Petitioners filed separate suits in a Texas state court, asking the court to enjoin the picketing as tortious under Texas law. The primary basis for petitioners’ claim was that the picketing sought to induce the owners and crews to break pre-existing contracts. Respondents presented several defenses, contending in particular that the jurisdiction of the Texas court was pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act.
The trial court sustained this contention, holding that jurisdiction properly lay with the NLRB, and the Texas Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. That court found that state jurisdiction was pre-empted by the Act when “the activities complained of are arguably either protected by section 7 or prohibited by section 8 of the NLRA as amended by the LMRA,” see San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 (1959), and that the conduct here met that test. The court rejected petitioners’ argument that the picketing interfered with the “maritime operations of foreign-flag ships,” see McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional, 372 U. S. 10 (1963), in such manner as to remove it from the Board’s jurisdiction. The court concluded:
“If [the picketing] but voices a complaint as to foreign wages and urges the public not to patronize foreign vessels it does not engage in matters outside of commerce. It is peaceful picketing, publicizing a labor dispute, of such a character that its validity is suggested by the Court’s holding in the Marine Cooks case, supra. It is, at least arguably, a protected activity under section 7 of the LMRA. As such, it is an activity as to which the exclusive jurisdiction to determine its propriety has been preempted to the NLRB.”
Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals too narrowly construed this Court’s decisions denying the NLRB jurisdiction in cases involving foreign-flag ships. We therefore begin by examining the principles established by those decisions for determining the jurisdiction of the NLRB.
II
In a series of cases decided over the past 17 years, this Court has discussed the application of the Labor Management Relations Act in situations which might be broadly described as disputes between unions representing workers in this country and owners of foreign-flag vessels operating in international maritime commerce. Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, 353 U. S. 138 (1957), is the leading case on the subject. In Benz the question was whether the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, precluded a diversity suit for damages brought in the United States District Court by foreign shipowners against picketing American unions. The picketing had been undertaken in Portland, Oregon, to support striking foreign crews employed under foreign articles and had resulted in the refusal of workers to load and repair the docked foreign ships. The District Court had awarded damages and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
This Court held that the shipowners’ action was not pre-empted by the Labor Management Relations Act. Studying the legislative history of the Act, the Court found no indication that it was intended to govern disputes between foreign shipowners and foreign crews. On the contrary, the Court concluded that the most revealing legislative history strongly suggested the bill was a “bill of rights ... for American workingmen and for their employers.” Id., at 144. (Emphasis in original.) The Court stated that this history “inescapably describes the boundaries of the Act as including only the workingmen of our own country and its possessions.” Ibid.
Recognition of the clear congressional purpose to apply the LMRA only to American workers and employers was doubtless a sufficient reason to place the picketing in Benz outside the Act. But the Court in that case made clear its reluctance to intrude domestic labor law willy-nilly into the complex of considerations affecting foreign trade, absent a clear congressional mandate to do so:
“For us to run interference in such a delicate field of international relations there must be present the affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed. It alone has the facilities necessary to make fairly such an important policy decision where the possibilities of international discord are so evident, and retaliative action so certain.” Id., at 147.
In the 17 years since Benz was decided, Congress has in no way indicated any such “affirmative intention,” and this Court has continued to construe the LMRA in accordance with the dictates of that case.
The reasoning of Benz was reaffirmed in McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional, 372 U. S. 10 (1963), and Incres S. S. Co. v. Maritime Workers, 372 U. S. 24 (1963), decided together six years later. In McCulloch, we held that the National Labor Relations Board had improperly assumed jurisdiction under the Act to order an election involving foreign crews of foreign-flag ships. Rejecting the Board’s “balancing of contacts” theory, the Court said:
“[T]o follow such a suggested procedure to the ultimate might require that the Board inquire into the internal discipline and order of all foreign vessels calling at American ports.” 372 U. S., at 19.
In lucres we applied this rationale to a situation involving union picketing of a foreign ship in an effort to organize the foreign crew. Reversing the holding, of a New York state court that the picketing was arguably within the jurisdiction of the NLRB, the Court said:
“The Board’s jurisdiction to prevent unfair labor practices, like its jurisdiction to direct elections, is based upon circumstances 'affecting commerce,’ and we have concluded that maritime operations of foreign-flag ships employing alien seamen are not in ‘commerce’ within the meaning of § 2 (6), 29 U. S. C. § 152 (6).” 372 U. S., at 27.
But Benz and its successor cases have not been read to exempt all organizational activities from the Act’s protections merely because those activities in some way were directed at an employer who was the owner of a foreign-flag vessel docked in an American port. In Longshoremen v. Ariadne Co., 397 U. S. 195 (1970), the Court held that the picketing of foreign ships to protest substandard wages paid by their owners to nonunion American longshoremen was “in ‘commerce’ within the meaning of § 2 (6), and thus might have been subject to the regulatory power of the National Labor Relations Board.” Id., at 200. The pickets in Ariadne, unlike the pickets in Benz or Inores, were primarily engaged in a dispute as to whether an employer should hire unionized or nonunionized American workers to perform longshoremen’s work, and the substandard wages which they were protesting were being paid to fellow American workers. The Court specifically noted: “[T]his dispute centered on the wages to be paid American residents.” Id., at 199.
The term “in commerce,” as used in the LMRA, is obviously not self-defining, and certainly the activities in Benz, McCulloch, and Inores, held not covered by the Act, were literally just as much “in commerce” as were the activities held covered in Ariadne. Those cases which deny jurisdiction to the NLRB recognize that Congress, when it used the words “in commerce” in the LMRA, simply did not intend that Act to erase longstanding principles of comity and accommodation in international maritime trade. In Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U. S. 571, 577 (1953), the Court commented on the congressional intent with respect to the Jones Act of 1920 in these words:
“But Congress in 1920 wrote these all-comprehending words, not on a clean slate, but as a postscript to a long series of enactments governing shipping. All were enacted with regard to a seasoned body of maritime law developed by the experience of American courts long accustomed to dealing with admiralty problems in reconciling our own with foreign interests and in accommodating the reach of our own laws to those of other maritime nations.”
We are even more reluctant to attribute to Congress an intention to disrupt this comprehensive body of law by construction of an Act unrelated to maritime commerce and directed solely at American labor relations.
Ill
The picketing activities in this case do not involve the inescapable intrusion into the affairs of foreign ships that was present in Benz and lucres; respondents seek neither to organize the foreign crews for purpose of representation nor to support foreign crews in their own wage dispute with a foreign shipowner. But those cases do not purport to fully delineate the threshold of interference with the maritime operations of foreign vessels which makes the LMRA inapplicable.
The picket signs utilized at the docks where the Northwind and Theomana were tied up protested the wages paid to foreign seamen who were employed by foreign shipowners under contracts made outside the United States. At the very least, the pickets must have hoped to exert sufficient pressure so that foreign vessels would be forced to raise their operating costs to levels comparable to those of American shippers, either because of lost cargo resulting from the longshoremen’s refusal to load or unload the vessels, or because of wage increases awarded as a virtual self-imposed tariff to regain entry to American ports. Such a large-scale increase in operating costs would have more than a negligible impact on the “maritime operations” of these foreign ships, and the effect would be by no means limited to costs incurred while in American ports. Unlike Ariadne, the protest here could not be accommodated by a wage decision on the part of the shipowners which would affect only wages paid within this country.
In this situation, the foreign vessels’ lot is not a happy one. A decision by the foreign owners to raise foreign seamen’s wages to a level mollifying the American pickets would have the most significant and far-reaching effect on the maritime operations of these ships throughout the world. A decision to boycott American ports in order to avoid the difficulties induced by the picketing would be detrimental not only to the private balance sheets of the foreign shipowners but to the citizenry of a country as dependent on goods carried in foreign bottoms as is ours. Retaliatory action against American vessels in foreign ports might likewise be considered, but the employment of such tactics would probably exacerbate and broaden the present dispute. Virtually none of the predictable responses of a foreign shipowner to picketing of this type, therefore, would be limited to the sort of wage-cost decision benefiting American workingmen which the LMRA was designed to regulate. This case, therefore, falls under Benz rather than under Ariadne.
Since we hold that respondents’ picketing was not “in commerce” as defined by the Act, we do not reach the question of whether the activity was otherwise of such a nature that state courts would be precluded by the LMRA from entertaining an action to enjoin it. Our conclusion that the activities here involved were not “in commerce” within the meaning of §§ 2 (6) and (7) of the NLRA, as amended by the LMRA, resolves a question which, of course, is one for the courts in the first instance. Ariadne, 397 U. S., at 200. The Court of Civil Appeals was therefore wrong in holding that the courts of the State of Texas were prevented by the LMRA from entertaining petitioners’ suit for an injunction.
Reversed.
482 S. W. 2d 675 (1972).
The definitions in §§ 2 (6) and (7), 29 U. S. C. §§ 152 (6) and (7), as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, are as follows:
"(6) The term ‘commerce’ means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State or other Territory, or between any foreign country and any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory, or between points in the same State but through any other State or any Territory or the District of Columbia or any foreign country.
“(7) The term ‘affecting commerce’ means in commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce, or having led or tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.”
Respondents describe themselves in their brief as “six labor organizations who collectively represent the overwhelming majority and practically almost all American merchant seamen.” Brief for Respondents 2.
The petitioners state:
“We do not contest the fact that the wages of foreign crews on foreign ships are substantially lower than those paid to American seamen on American ships.” Brief for Petitioners 19.
The brief notes some estimates that the American wage costs are between 2% to 4 times higher than the foreign wage costs. Id., at 19 n.
These pamphlets stated:
“To the Public — American Seamen have lost approximately 50% of their jobs in the past few years to foreign flag ships employing seamen at a fraction of the wages of American Seamen.
“American dollars flowing to these foreign ship owners operating ships at wages and benefits substandard to American Seamen, are hurting our balance of payments in addition to hurting our economy by the loss of jobs.
“A strong American Merchant Marine is essential to our national defense. The fewer American flag ships there are, the weaker our position will be in a period of national emergency.
“PLEASE PATRONIZE AMERICAN FLAG VESSELS, SAVE OUR JOBS, HELP OUR ECONOMY AND SUPPORT OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE BY HELPING TO CREATE A STRONG AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE.
“Our dispute is limited to the vessel picketed at this site, the S. S.” (App. 21).
The courts below considered only this ground advanced by respondents, finding it dispositive. We express no opinion on the merits of respondents’ other contentions.
482 S. W. 2d, at 678.
Id., at 680-682.
Id., at 682.
Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, 353 U. S. 138 (1957); McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional, 372 U. S. 10 (1963); Incres S. S. Co. v. Maritime Workers, 372 U. S. 24 (1963); Longshoremen v. Ariadne Co., 397 U. S. 195 (1970).
The Court in McCulloch also noted that the Board’s actions had “aroused vigorous protests from foreign governments and created international problems for our Government.” 372 U. S., at 17.
The evidence in Ariadne showed that the work at issue was performed partly by members of the foreign ships’ crews and partly by outside labor. 397 U. S., at 196. Those workers included in the classification “outside labor” were nonunion members. This Court noted that “[t]he participation of some crew members in the longshore work does not obscure the fact that this dispute centered on the wages to be paid American residents, who were employed by each foreign ship not to serve as members of its crew but rather to do casual longshore work.” Id., at 199.
The basic question at issue in Lauritzen was whether American or Danish law applied to a maritime tort which occurred in Havana Harbor. Although analysis of the Jones Act there obviously involved different considerations from analysis of the Labor Management Relations Act here, it is interesting to note that some arguments at least are common to both cases. In Lauritzen this Court rejected a “candid and brash appeal” made by the seamen and various amici that the Court should “extend the law to this situation as a means of benefiting seamen and enhancing the costs of foreign ship operation for the competitive advantage of our own.” 345 U. S., at 593. We observed at that time that such arguments were obviously better directed to Congress.
We do not find the rationale of Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Panama S. S. Co., 362 U. S. 365 (1960), to be applicable here. Although that case involved a labor situation strikingly similar to the situation involved in this case, the controlling question in Marine Cooks was the jurisdiction of a federal district court to enjoin picketing of a foreign-flag ship under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U. S. C. § 101 et seq. The Court held that in such circumstances the district courts had no jurisdiction. However, as we later noted in McCulloch, 372 U. S., at 18, Marine Cooks “cannot be regarded as limiting the earlier Benz holding . . . since no question as to ‘whether the picketing . . . was tortious under state or federal law' was either presented or decided.” Obviously the question whether Congress intended the federal courts to stay out of the labor injunction business involves significantly different considerations from the question whether Congress intended the Labor Management Relations Act to apply to the type of picketing of foreign ships involved here.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is before the Court for a determination of when and in what proceedings a common carrier by rail may challenge an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission awarding reparations to a shipper claiming injury because of the carrier’s violation of the Act.
A shipper, Thomson Phosphate Company, filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that certain rates charged by respondent railroads were unjust and unreasonable and seeking reimbursement of those transportation charges to the extent they were unlawful. Interstate Commerce Act §§ 8 and 9, 24 Stat. 382, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §§ 8 and 9 (1964 ed.). The Commission sustained the complaint and issued a report finding that the assailed rates were unjust and unreasonable and that the shipper was entitled to reparations. Thomson Phosphate Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 303 I. C. C. 25 (Div. 2, 1958). When respondents refused to certify the shipper’s statements showing the shipments made during the period involved, the Commission reopened the proceeding for a determination of the amount of reparations due. After such additional proceedings, the Commission found Thomson was entitled to reparations of $8,889.76 with interest, and an order was entered authorizing and directing respondents to pay such sum by a specified date, later amended to August 28, 1961. 311 I. C. C. 315. Respondents refused to comply with the order and brought suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida under § 17 (9) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 385, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 17 (9), and 28 U. S. C. §§ 1336 and 1398 (1964 ed.) to enjoin, set aside, and annul the orders of the Commission. Respondents claimed, inter alia, that the Commission erred in finding the rates unreasonable and in not finding Thomson’s claims barred by the Act’s limitation provision, Interstate Commerce Act § 16 (3), 24 Stat. 384, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 16 (3) (1964 ed.). Thomson, which was not a party to the carriers’ action, filed in the Southern District of New York a suit against respondents and other railroads to enforce the Commission’s reparation award pursuant to § 16 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 16 (2) (1964 ed.). By stipulation, the New York case has been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the Florida case, which is presently before this Court.
The Commission moved to dismiss the carriers’ injunction action, contending that reparation orders are not reviewable in such a suit and that the carriers were required to await the shipper’s enforcement action to attack the Commission’s order. The Florida District Court denied the motion to dismiss and, on the merits, held that Thomson’s claims were barred by limitations. 213 F. Supp. 199. The sole issue raised on appeal was whether the District Court had jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, sustaining the jurisdiction of the Florida District Court. 334 F. 2d 46. We granted cer-tiorari because of the importance of this question in the administration of the Act. 379 U. S. 957. We reverse and hold that when the Commission issues a reparation order, not accompanied by a cease-and-desist order, a carrier may obtain review of the Commission’s order only in the court where the shipper commences its enforcement action — or where the shipper seeks review of the Commission’s order, see Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, post, p. 607.
I.
The Interstate Commerce Act contains detailed provisions governing the presentation and adjudication of claims for reparations. Section 8 is the basic provision creating liability and declares that any common carrier by rail which violates the Act “shall be liable to the person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of any such violation....” By § 9, the complainant is given the alternatives of seeking such damages by complaint to the Commission, under the procedures established by § 13 (1), or of bringing suit in a federal district court. But the primary jurisdiction doctrine requires initial submission to the Commission of questions that raise “issues of transportation policy which ought to be considered by the Commission in the interests of a uniform and expert administration of the regulatory scheme laid down by [the] Act.” United States v. Western Pac. R. Co., 352 U. S. 59, 65; Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. American Tie & Timber Co., 234 U. S. 138. Accordingly, a shipper who commences his § 9 reparation proceeding in the District Court will nevertheless be required to repair to the Commission for decision of issues, like the reasonableness of rates, which call the primary jurisdiction doctrine into play. When that occurs, the court ordering the reference of such issues to the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action to enforce, enjoin, set aside, or annul a Commission order arising out of the referral, 28 U. S. C. § 1336 (b) (1964 ed.), such action to be brought within 90 days of the entry of the Commission’s final order, 28 U. S. C. § 1336 (c) (1964 ed).
Our concern here, however, is with the alternative procedure provided in § 9, which involves an initial complaint before the Commission and culminates in the § 16 (2) suit to enforce the Commission’s reparation award. Section 16 (1) provides that if the Commission determines the complainant is entitled to reparations it “shall make an order directing the carrier to pay to the complainant the sum to which he is entitled on or before a day named.” If the carrier fails to comply with the order by the designated time, the shipper then has the right under § 16 (2) to file suit in either federal or state court to enforce the Commission’s reparation award. Moreover, Congress has provided that in such a suit the shipper is to have certain procedural advantages designed to discourage “harassing resistance by a carrier to [the] reparation order.” St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Spiller, 275 U. S. 156, 159; see also Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 236 U. S. 412, 433; Baldwin v. Milling Co., 307 U. S. 478. The shipper has a broad choice of venue. If the suit is brought in a federal court, see Lewis-Simas-Jones Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 283 U. S. 654, 661, the shipper is free from liability for costs, except as they accrue on its appeal, and it may introduce at trial the findings and order of the Commission, which “shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated....” In addition, the shipper is to be allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee if it prevails, an advantage also accorded under § 8 to shippers who elect to proceed in court in the first instance.
The Interstate Commerce Act likewise contains general provision for judicial review of Commission orders. Section 17 (9) provides that after an application for rehearing, reargument, or reconsideration has been denied or otherwise disposed of, a suit may be brought to enforce, enjoin, suspend, or set aside the Commission decision, order or requirement.
Jurisdiction of both § 16 (2) and § 17 (9) suits is vested in the federal district courts by 28 U. S. C. § 1336 (a) (1964 ed.). Venue is determined by 28 U. S. C. § 1398 (a) (1964 ed.), which, “except as otherwise provided by law,” limits suits to the judicial district where the party bringing the action has his residence or principal office. But because of the quoted exception, this venue restriction does not apply to suits commenced pursuant to § 16 (2), as that section contains its own venue provision.
Procedures for review of Commission orders “other than for the payment of money,” see 28 U. S. C. § 2321 (1964 ed.), are governed by 28 U. S. C. §§ 2321-2325 (1964 ed.). Such actions must be brought by or against the United States, § 2322; the Commission and parties in interest appearing before the Commission may intervene as of right, § 2323; and no interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining enforcement of a Commission order may be granted unless the application is heard and determined by a three-judge district court, § 2325, with direct review here, 28 U. S. C. § 1253 (1964 ed.). In United States v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 337 U. S. 426, however, this Court held that Commission orders which determine in a reparation proceeding that assailed rates are unlawful but do not direct the carrier to cease and desist charging such rates, because the rates have been discontinued, “are not of sufficient public importance to justify the accelerated judicial review procedure,” 337 U. S., at 442. Thus, though the procedures set out in 28 U. S. C. §§ 2321-2325 (1964 ed.) otherwise govern § 17 (9) proceedings to review such orders, § 2325 is not applicable and the matter may be adjudicated by a single judge. Because § 16 (2) actions seek enforcement of an order “for the payment of money,” the above-described procedures do not apply. Section 16 (2) directs that actions thereunder “shall proceed in all respects like other civil suits for damages,” with the exception of the special procedural advantages accorded the shipper to which we have previously referred.
II.
From the foregoing summary it will be observed that § 16 (2) actions for enforcement of Commission reparation awards and § 17 (9) actions to set aside Commission orders are quite distinct proceedings, with different venue restrictions and different procedures. Moreover, Congress conferred certain procedural advantages on shippers bringing § 16 (2) actions that may well be lost or impaired if carriers may attack the Commission’s order in a direct review proceeding pursuant to § 17 (9). Accordingly, we are asked to harmonize the language and purposes of the two provisions.
At the outset, however, it should be emphasized that we are here concerned with a narrow, though important, category of cases. First, it is conceded that if the Commission’s reparation order is accompanied by a cease-and-desist order, as it usually will be when the proceeding originates before the Commission and the rates or practices under attack continue in use, the carrier may obtain immediate review of the cease-and-desist order pursuant to § 17 (9); and such review will ordinarily determine the validity of the finding of statutory violation on which the reparation order is founded. A Commission cease-and-desist order respecting rates and charges, for example, which may be issued pursuant to the authority granted by § 15 (1) to prescribe just and reasonable rates, subjects the carrier to $5,000 per day penalties for noncompliance, 49 U. S. C. § 16 (8) (1964 ed.), and is typical of orders reviewed in suits to set aside Commission orders since the first such suit, Stickney v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 164 F. 638 (C. C. D. Minn.), aff’d, 215 U. S. 98; see also Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 220 U. S. 235; United States v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 337 U. S. 426, 454 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). Second, even when a cease-and-desist order is not joined with the reparation order, the latter order will be subject to direct review when no other means of securing review is available, regardless of whether review is sought by a shipper, United States v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 337 U. S. 426; Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, post, p. 607, or the carrier, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, 363 U. S. 202. In the cited cases the party seeking review could not obtain such review in a § 16 (2) suit, either directly or through interposition of a defense.
Thus in United States v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, supra, the Government filed with the Commission a complaint seeking reparations, but the Commission found the assailed charges did not violate the Act and dismissed the complaint. As there was no award upon which to base a § 16 (2) suit, the United States would have been denied all review had jurisdiction of the § 17 (9) action not been sustained. Similarly, in Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, post, p. 607, we hold that a shipper may challenge in a direct review proceeding the adequacy of a reparation award, such a challenge being one that could not be pressed in an enforcement action, see Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Brady, 288 U. S. 448, 457-458; D. L. Piazza Co. v. West Coast Line, 210 F. 2d 947 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U. S. 839.
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, supra, involved a suit by a carrier in the Court of Claims to collect the charges due under its tariff. The United States defended on the ground that the rates were unreasonable, and the Court of Claims referred that issue to the Commission pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine, United States v. Western Pac. R. Co., 352 U. S. 59, 62-70. The Commission found certain rates unjust and unreasonable, without ordering reparations or issuing a cease- and-desist order, and the carrier filed a § 17 (9) suit in federal district court to set the order aside. On review of the Court of Claims’ refusal to further suspend its proceedings pending the District Court action, this Court held that the carrier was entitled to judicial review of the Commission order, that the Court of Claims had no jurisdiction to afford such review, and that the Court of Claims should therefore have suspended its proceedings. Because of the holding that the Court of Claims could not review the Commission order, failure to sustain the District Court’s jurisdiction of the carrier’s § 17 (9) action would again have precluded judicial review.
The essential question in this case is the extent to which United States v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n and Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, compel allowance of respondents’ direct review action. The Commission asks us to limit those cases to their facts — situations where judicial review would not have been available if the § 17 (9) suit was not permitted. It argues that sufficient opportunity to obtain review of the Commission’s finding that a statutory violation has occurred is afforded respondents by their right to challenge that determination in defense of Thomson’s § 16 (2) action to enforce the reparation award. If jurisdiction to review in a § 17 (9) suit should be sustained, the Commission further contends, shippers will be deprived of many of the advantages bestowed by § 16 (2). And the historical development of § 16 (2) and the direct review proceeding is said to establish that Congress did not contemplate that the carrier could obtain direct review in a case like that at bar and thereby short-circuit the shipper’s suit. Finally, the Commission urges that in reparation cases where the assailed rates are no longer in effect and no cease-and-desist order issues the Commission’s order has little continuing or general significance but is comparable to an adjudication in a private damages action of interest only to the parties involved; therefore, it is appropriate for the order to be defended by the shipper, who is in effect compensated for such defense by the procedural advantages accorded by § 16 (2), rather than by the United States and the Commission.
Respondents argue that, to the contrary, past practice and the decisions of this Court establish that the exclusive method of reviewing Commission findings that a statutory violation has occurred is through a § 17 (9) proceeding and that such a finding may not be challenged and is not open to review in a § 16 (2) action. Respondents also argue that limiting review to the § 16 (2) proceeding would result in disparate treatment of shippers, through conflicting decisions in enforcement suits, and would thus violate the Act’s cardinal principle of uniformity of rates.
As will appear more fully below, we take a middle course. We conclude that carriers may obtain full review by defending the § 16 (2) action and that the policy underlying that section precludes the carriers from obtaining review in a forum other than that chosen by the shipper. But we find no obstacle to the carriers’ bringing a § 17 (9) cross-proceeding in the forum selected by the shipper, should they so desire.
III.
A threshold question is raised by respondents’ contention that the statutory violation issue is not open to review in a §16(2) enforcement action, the Commission’s finding being conclusive on the enforcement court unless set aside in a §17 (9) proceeding. If respondents are correct on this point, their § 17 (9) action must be allowed under even the Commission’s interpretation of United States v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 337 U. S. 426, and Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, 363 U. S. 202.
To support their view of the scope of review in the enforcement action, respondents refer principally to Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 247. In that case, a shipper commenced its reparation suit under §§ 8 and 9 in a federal district court. This Court held that since the dispute raised “administrative” questions concerning the reasonableness of rates, the primary jurisdiction doctrine required the shipper to proceed first before the Commission. Regarding the weight to be accorded the Commission’s resulting order, the Court said:
“Such orders, so far as they are administrative are conclusive, whether they relate to past or present rates, and can be given general and uniform operation, since all shippers, who have been or may be affected by the rate, can take advantage of the ruling and avail themselves of the reparation order. They are quasi-judicial and only prima jade correct in so far as they determine the fact and amount of damage — as to which, since it involves the payment of money and taking of property, the carrier is by § 16 of the act given its day in court and the right to a judicial hearing....” 230 U. S., at 258.
Accord, Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 304.
The prima facie evidence provision in § 16 (2), however, draws no express distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial findings of the Commission, and we said of that provision in Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 236 U. S. 412, 430, that “[i]t cuts off no defense [and] interposes no obstacle to a full contestation of all the issues....” See also United States v. Inter state Commerce Comm’n, 337 U. S. 426, 435 (§16 (2) proceedings afford “railroads complete judicial review of adverse reparation orders”). Moreover, in one of the earliest cases under the Hepburn Act, the Court reviewed the question of statutory violation in a §16(2) case, concluded that the legal theory applied by the Commission was erroneous, and set aside the Commission’s determination that the disputed rates were unreasonable. Southern R. Co. v. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co., 214 U. S. 297. See also Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 284 U. S. 370. The seemingly contradictory statements in the contemporaneous Mitchell Coal and Meeker decisions require explanation, which we believe can be found in the general course of decisions in that era respecting the scope of review of Commission orders.
From our brief résumé of the Court’s opinion in Mitchell Coal it should be immediately apparent that the case did not, strictly speaking, require the determination of the scope of judicial review in § 16 (2) enforcement actions. The proceeding under review had been commenced in court pursuant to § 9 rather than § 16 and no Commission order had yet been entered. The question directly in issue concerned the applicability of the primary jurisdiction doctrine to cases involving discontinued, rather than present, rates.
Initially formulated in cases arising under the Interstate Commerce Act, the primary jurisdiction doctrine was premised in the early cases on the policy of the Act of assuring uniform rates. The Court reasoned that many questions arising under the Act, such as whether rates were unreasonable or discriminatory, were essentially questions of fact particularly appropriate for determination by an expert Commission. If shippers could challenge the filed rates by proceedings before a court, without prior resort to the Commission, different conclusions might be reached by different courts; and the prevailing shippers would thereby obtain a rate preference as compared to unsuccessful shippers, which would violate the principle of uniform rates. See, e. g., Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 440-441; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U. S. 481, 493-495; Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 247, 255-260. Of course a preliminary determination by the Commission would have little effect in achieving uniformity if its determination were subject to de novo review, and it was for that reason that the Court pointed out in Mitchell Coal the “conclusive” effect that would be accorded “administrative” findings of the Commission in any ensuing § 16 action.
But other decisions rendered by the. Court during the same period indicate that it was not only in § 16 proceedings that the Commission findings would be conclusive, in the sense the Court was actually using that term. Under the original Act, failure to comply with any order of the Commission did not in itself entail any penalty. Commission orders were judicially enforceable at the instance of the Commission or any party in interest, and the Act provided that in an enforcement action “the findings of fact in the report of said Commission shall be prima facie evidence of the matters therein stated.” Interstate Commerce Act, § 16, 24 Stat. 384 (1887), as amended, 25 Stat. 860 (1889). Though retaining the prima facie evidence provision for actions on reparation awards, the Hepburn Act of 1906 included no provision respecting the weight to be given Commission findings in nonreparation cases. Section 15 of the amended Act, however, made Commission orders, except orders for the payment of money, self-enforcing for purposes of incurring liability for penalties for noncompliance, unless such orders had been suspended or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. In Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Illinois Central R. Co., 215 U. S. 452, a suit to set aside a cease-and-desist order, the changes effected by the Hepburn Act in making Commission orders self-enforcing were interpreted as reducing the scope of judicial review from that prevailing when Commission orders were only prima facie evidence. The Court stated it could consider whether the Commission action exceeded constitutional power or right, whether the administrative order was within the scope of authority delegated, and whether the exercise of authority was reasonable, but it could not “usurp merely administrative functions by setting aside a lawful administrative order upon our conception as to whether the administrative power has been wisely exercised. Power to make the order and not the mere expediency or wisdom of having made it, is the question.” 215 U. S., at 470. Through frequent repetition, see Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Union Pac. R. Co., 222 U. S. 541, 547-548; Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 282, 297-298, the principles elaborated in Illinois Central gradually became restated as a doctrine “that the findings of the Commission were made not merely prima facie but conclusively correct in case of judicial review, except to the extent pointed out in the Illinois Central and other cases...,” United States v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 235 U. S. 314, 320. Accord, Central R. Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 247, 256-257; United States v. Illinois Central R. Co., 263 U. S. 515, 525-526 and n. 7. See generally, Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125, 139-140. By a parallel development, the Court placed increasing reliance in primary jurisdiction cases on the “conclusive” effect of Commission orders as a factor demonstrating that the requirement of preliminary resort to the Commission on administrative questions would indeed further the statutory policy of uniform treatment. Compare Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U. S. 481, 494, with Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 247, 258, quoted, supra, p. 590.
When Mitchell Coal and Meeker are read together against the background of the Illinois Central and Louisville ■& Nashville cases it becomes clear that Commission orders are fully reviewable in § 16 (2) suits, but Commission findings on questions required under the primary jurisdiction doctrine to be determined first by the Commission are conclusive in the same sense that such findings would be conclusive in suits to set aside the Commission’s order. That is, findings on primary jurisdiction issues are to be reviewed by the Court on the administrative record under the familiar standards elaborated in direct review proceedings, while findings on other questions are subject to review under the prima facie evidence provision of § 16 (2), with the statutory rights of introducing evidence not before the Commission and obtaining a jury determination of disputed issues of fact. Such an interpretation of § 16 (2)’s prima facie evidence provision is required if that provision is to be consonant with the primary jurisdiction doctrine. That interpretation seems to have been applied by the Court in Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Weber, 257 U. S. 85, 90—91; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Sloss-Shef- field Co., 269 U. S. 217; News Syndicate Co. v. New York Central R. Co., 275 U. S. 179; Adams v. Mills, 286 U. S. 397, 409-410. It is urged in the present ease by the Commission and in a companion case by the Federal Maritime Commission, was accepted by the court below, 334 F. 2d, at 49, n. 12, and has been applied by several other lower federal courts, New Process Gear Corp. v. New York Central R. Co., 250 F. 2d 569, 571-572 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 356 U. S. 959; Midland Valley R. Co. v. Excelsior Coal Co., 86 F. 2d 177, 181-182 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1936); Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Brady, 61 F. 2d 242, 246, 248 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1932), rev’d on other grounds, 288 U. S. 448; City of Danville v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 34 F. Supp. 620, 625, 627-628 (D. C. W. D. Va. 1940); Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 237 F. 272, 275 (D. C. E. D. Pa. 1916). We adhere to that interpretation now.
IV.
Having established that the carrier has ample opportunity to secure review in the enforcement action, we must now consider whether affording the carrier the alternative of bringing direct review proceedings pursuant to § 17 (9) would vitiate the congressional policy expressed in § 16 (2) of encouraging prompt payment of reparation awards. To effectuate that policy, Congress has provided for the shipper certain procedural and substantive benefits pertaining to venue, freedom from costs, prima facie effect of the Commission’s order, and allowance of a reasonable attorney’s fee. The Commission contends that permitting the carrier to bring direct review proceedings will materially impair the benefits derived by the shipper from the procedural dispensations of § 16 (2). We conclude that although the degree of impairment would be less than that claimed by the Commission, it would nevertheless be substantial.
The Commission argument respecting venue, which we accept, proceeds as follows: Because the carrier may bring its § 17 (9) action as soon as the final Commission order is entered but the shipper’s § 16 (2) suit must await passage of the date set for compliance, the carrier may file its suit first and thus obtain priority. Although the carrier’s suit must be brought against the United States, 28 U. S. C. § 2322 (1964 ed.), the Commission and the shipper may intervene as of right, 28 U. S. C. § 2323 (1964 ed.), and the shipper will be under compulsion to do so to protect its interest since a decision setting aside the Commission’s order would destroy the foundation of the enforcement action. In this way, the shipper will frequently be denied his choice of forum on the statutory violation issue as the § 17 (9) suit must be brought in the judicial district of the residence or principal office of the party bringing the suit, 28 U. S. C. § 1398 (a), which may be far removed from the district in which the shipper resides or through which the road of the carrier runs — alternatives that are open to the shipper under § 16 (2) and, being likely to offer a more convenient venue to the shipper, would frequently be the shipper’s choice.
By a similar analysis the Commission also contends that a shipper forced to intervene in the carrier’s § 17 (9) action would lose the advantages of freedom from costs and the right to a reasonable attorney’s fee, since those rights are conferred only in the § 16 (2) action and not in § 17 (9) actions. But since both the § 16 (2) action and the § 17 (9) action may be heard and determined by a single district judge when the reparation order is not accompanied by a cease-and-desist order, United States v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 337 U. S. 426, 440-443; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, 363 U. S. 202, it would be possible, apart from venue problems, for the shipper to press its action in the same district as the carrier’s action, either by an independent action to be consolidated with the carrier’s action, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 42 (a), or by a counterclaim after intervention in the carrier’s action, see Switzer Bros., Inc. v. Locklin, 207 F. 2d 483 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1953); 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 13.05 (2d ed. 1964), 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 24.17 (2d ed. 1963). Then to the extent that the shipper’s costs and attorney’s fees were attributable to its § 16 (2) counterclaim or action the § 16 (2) advantages would clearly be applicable. And it would be arguable — an issue we do not decide — that the shipper would be entitled to the benefit of § 16 (2) as to all its costs and attorney’s fees in the combined action.
Since the Commission believes that the scope of review of findings on primary jurisdiction issues would be the same regardless of whether review was sought in a §16(2) or a §17(9) action, it makes no claim that allowance of the direct review proceeding would undercut the prima facie evidence provision of § 16 (2).
In summary, the principal, if not sole, effect of permitting respondents’ direct review proceeding would be to force on shippers the alternatives of either forgoing the opportunity to defend the Commission order or accepting the carrier’s choice of a distant venue. The first alternative is obviously counter to the policy expressed in § 16 (2), and, as we have said, it is to be expected that shippers would elect to defend the Commission’s order even at the expense of loss of their venue advantage. The importance of choice of venue in these actions should not be discounted. Since the record in the enforcement action is not limited to that made before the Commission, the shipper may desire to call witnesses or to introduce documentary evidence either in direct support of the Commission’s order or in rebuttal to opposing evidence produced by the carrier, thus bringing into play those factors relating to the convenience of witnesses and the relative burden of making proof that make the choice of venue so important in other contexts. See Mercantile National Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555; Schnell v. Peter Eckrich & Sons, Inc., 365 U. S. 260.
y.
But respondents contend that confining review to the enforcement action would introduce into the administration of the Act problems of greater severity and importance than any effect such a course might have in safeguarding the shipper’s § 16 (2) privileges. Respondents note that under the doctrine of Phillips Co. v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 236 U. S. 662, shippers who are not complainants before the Commission may nevertheless obtain the advantage of the Commission’s reparation order as a basis for their own § 16 (2) action. It is argued that the enforcement court has no power to set aside the Commission order and, therefore, a decision upholding a carrier’s attack on the Commission’s order in one enforcement proceeding would not preclude another shipper from successfully invoking that order in a separate enforcement proceeding, thus resulting in disparate treatment of shippers contrary to the Act’s objective of securing uniform rates.
It is of course true that the court may not formally set aside the Commission’s order in an action in which neither the Commission nor the United States is a party. Cf. United States v. Jones. 336 U. S. 641, 651-653, 670-671; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, 363 U. S. 202, 205. But we do not read Phillips Co. v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., supra, to permit reliance by a nonparticipating shipper on the Commission’s order when it has been disapproved in litigation between the complainant shipper and the railroad. In the Phillips case, the Commission had separately determined that challenged rates were unlawful and had issued a cease-and-desist order, which was sustained in an enforcement proceeding brought by the Commission. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 206 U. S. 441. Thereafter, some reparation
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The question presented in these three cases is whether a longshoreman may prosecute a personal injury action against a negligent shipowner after his right to recover damages has been assigned to his employer by operation of § 33 (b) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq,
Each petitioner is a longshoreman who was injured aboard ship in the regular course of his employment. Each asserted a claim for compensation against the stevedore by whom he was employed. Each accepted compensation from his employer pursuant to an award in a compensation order. More than six months later, each commenced an action against the shipowner alleging that the defendant had negligently caused his injury. The District Courts granted motions for summary judgment filed by the respondent shipowners on the ground that, by reason of the longshoremen’s failure to bring suit within six months, their causes of action had been assigned to the stevedores who thereafter had the exclusive right to pursue the third-party claims. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, 617 F. 2d 955 (1980); 622 F. 2d 572 and 575 (1980), and we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict with the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Caldwell v. Ogden Sea Transport, Inc., 618 F. 2d 1037 (1980). 449 U. S. 818.
There is no dispute about the parties’ respective interests in either (a) a claim asserted by a longshoreman against a shipowner within the 6-month period following acceptance of a compensation award, or (b) a claim asserted by the stevedore against the shipowner after the 6-month period has elapsed. In the former situation, the longshoreman has exclusive control of the action; any recovery in excess of the amount required to pay the cost of litigation and to reimburse the employer for the statutory compensation paid pursuant to the award belongs entirely to the longshoreman. In the latter situation, the stevedore has exclusive control of the litigation; any net recovery — after the compensation award and the litigation costs have been recouped — must be shared 80% by the longshoreman and 20% by the employer. The question presented by these cases is what right, if any, the longshoreman has against the third-party shipowner if he does not sue within the 6-month period and the employer fails to do so thereafter. Both the plain language of the statute and the history of its amendments dictate the same answer.
I
Even though the language of § 33 (b) is simple and direct, it is appropriate to begin by quoting our description last Term of the context in which it appears:
“The Act provides a comprehensive scheme governing an injured longshoreman’s rights against the stevedore and shipowner. The longshoreman is not required to make an election between the receipt of compensation and a damages action against a third person, 33 U. S. C. §933 (a). After receiving a compensation award from the stevedore, the longshoreman is given six months within which to bring suit against the third party. 33 U. S. C. § 933 (b). If he fails to seek relief within that period, the acceptance of the compensation award operates as an assignment to the stevedore of the longshoreman’s rights against the third party.” Bloomer v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 445 U. S. 74, 77-78.
As is apparent, § 33 (b) plays a central role in this comprehensive legislative scheme.
The language of § 33 (b) is both mandatory and unequivocal. It provides that the acceptance of compensation under an award “shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages against such third person unless such person shall commence an action against such third person within six months after such award.” 33 U. S. C. § 933 (b) (emphasis supplied).
The only conditions precedent to the statutory assignment are the acceptance of compensation pursuant to an award in a compensation order and the passage of the required period of six months. These conditions are admittedly satisfied in these cases. The statutory assignment encompasses “all right” of the employee to recover damages from a third party. These words preclude the possibility that the assignment is only a partial one that does not entirely divest the employee of his right to sue, or that the employee and the employer possess concurrent rights to sue in the postassignment period. When the § 33 (b) assignment occurs, it transfers the employee’s entire right to commence a third-party action to the employer.
Application of this plain statutory language to the undisputed facts in these cases leads to the conclusion that petitioners may not pursue their claims for damages against the respondent shipowners. Petitioners filed these actions well beyond the 6-month period following acceptance of compensation, and offered no excuse for their delay. Although their employers failed to pursue the assigned claims, the statute does not expressly require that employers pursue third-party claims, nor does it provide for relief to employees should the assigned claims lie dormant. Therefore, petitioners appear to be without a cause of action under the statute.
In an attempt to avoid the conclusion mandated by its plain language, petitioners contend that the Act should be construed either to include an unexpressed condition precedent to any effective assignment — namely, the absence of any possible conflict of interest between the employer-stevedore and the employee — or to grant the employee an implicit right to have the third-party claim reassigned if the employer fails to sue. Normally, these contentions would be foreclosed by the lack of any ambiguity in the statutory language. But the statutory language was also unambiguous in 1956 when this Court held in Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud, 351 U. S. 525, that § 33 (b) contained a limited exception. It therefore is appropriate to evaluate petitioners’ contentions in the light of the relevant legislative history. In making this evaluation, however, we adhere to the rule that, “[a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, [the statutory] language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108.
II
As originally enacted in 1927, the Act gave an injured longshoreman the right to elect between the certain recovery of compensation from his employer without any proof of fault, or the less certain, but probably more generous, remedy of an action for damages against a negligent third party. The employee’s election to accept compensation under the Act effected an immediate assignment to his employer of his cause of action for negligence. Under the original Act, the longshoreman could pursue either remedy but not both, and nothing more than the acceptance of compensation was required to evidence the employee’s election. See, e. g., Toomey v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 123 F. 2d 718, 721 (CA2 1941).
In 1938, Congress amended the Act to provide that the acceptance of compensation would operate as an assignment only if the payment was “under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner.” This procedural change was designed to protect the employee from the harsh consequences of an improvident election. Although Congress thereby reduced the danger that an employee would make an election without being advised about its consequences, the 1938 amendment did nothing to mitigate those consequences once the election was made.
In 1956, this Court held that an injured longshoreman could enforce his right of action against a third party, notwithstanding his acceptance of compensation from his employer. Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silver cloud, supra. In that case, both the employer and the third party allegedly responsible for the unseaworthy condition that had caused the employee’s injury were insured by the Travelers Insurance Co. Because the stevedore had no interest in recovering the compensation payments that had been made by its insurance carrier, and because that carrier would be responsible for both prosecuting and defending any third-party claim, no one other than the injured longshoreman had a sufficient interest in the claim to bring suit. Because of the conflict between the assignee’s interest and the interest of the employee, the Court construed the Act to allow the longshoreman to enforce the third-party claim in his own name. The Court did not hold that no assignment had occurred; rather, it held that under “the peculiar facts” of the case, the election and consequent assignment did not bar the employee’s action.
Two years after Czaplicki, in Johnson v. Sword Line, Inc., 257 F. 2d 541 (1958), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a different sort of conflict of interest would also preserve the longshoreman’s right to sue a third party after accepting compensation from his employer. This Court had previously held, in Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 350 U. S. 124, that a shipowner who was hable to a longshoreman could assert a claim for indemnity against the employer-stevedore. That holding inevitably created a conflict.between the stevedore’s interest in recouping the compensation awarded to the longshoreman and its interest in avoiding the risk of a substantially larger liability as an in-demnitor. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the stevedore’s potential liability under the indemnity claim authorized by Ryan Stevedoring had the practical effect of enlarging the conflict-of-interest rationale of Czaplicki, which had narrowly rested on the peculiar facts of that case, to encompass substantially every case in which a stevedore failed to bring a third-party action. Accordingly, the court concluded that a conflict of interest could be presumed to exist whenever the statutory assignee failed to pursue or to reassign the assigned claim, unless that claim was obviously lacking in merit. See 257 F. 2d, at 544-546.
The impact of Ryan Stevedoring upon third-party claims assigned to employers by operation of § 33 (b) was brought to the attention of Congress as well. In 1956, a House Subcommittee conducted hearings on proposed legislation that ultimately evolved into the 1959 amendments to the Act. One of the bills considered by the Subcommittee was H. R. 5357, which provided, among other things, that an employee could commence a third-party suit within six months after accepting compensation, and that an employer who successfully pursued an assigned third-party claim was entitled to keep one-third of any net recovery. As explained by Congressman Zelenko, the bill’s author, these provisions were designed to mitigate the problems identified in Justice Black’s dissenting opinion in Ryan Stevedoring. Other witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee also expressed concern about the conflict-of-interest problem created by Ryan Stevedoring and endorsed H. R. 5357 as an effective solution to that problem.
In 1959, Congress acted to remedy the problems created by the potential conflict between the interests of the employer and the employee in prosecuting third-party claims. Its solution was not to create or to define an exception to the assignment by operation of law. Rather, Congress substantially adopted the central provisions of the Zelenko bill by amending § 33 (b) to postpone the assignment by operation of law until six months after the acceptance of compensation under an award, and by amending § 33 (e) to allow an employer to retain one-fifth of the net proceeds of its successful third-party action. The effect of the 6-month provision, of course, was to give the longshoreman an unqualified right to bring a third-party action during the 6-month period. If his financial circumstances made it imperative that he accept a prompt settlement of his compensation claim, he could do so without forfeiting his right to seek a more liberal recovery from a responsible third party. Moreover, by bringing his own action, the longshoreman could avoid the risk that his employer’s potential conflict of interest — or possibly erroneous evaluation of the merits of the claim — might result in its abandonment. The amendment to § 33 (e) provided an additional incentive to the employer to sue after assignment of the claim by giving him a share in any excess recovery.
Nothing in the 1959 amendments purports to preserve the employee’s right to commence a third-party suit after the 6-month period expires. Although the amendments encourage employers to pursue assigned claims, they do not qualify the assignee’s control of the cause of action after the assignment takes place. To the contrary, the legislative history indicates that once the 6-month period expires, the employer possesses complete control of third-party claims.
This history forecloses the argument that Congress did not intend an assignment of a third-party claim to be effective unless there was an absence of any potential conflict of interest between the assignee and the longshoreman. The statutory language provides a different and clearly defined solution to the conflict-of-interest problem that had been created by Ryan Stevedoring. Congress unequivocally made the choice in favor of first giving the employee exclusive control of the cause of action for a 6-month period and then giving the employer exclusive control thereafter, instead of opting for any form of simultaneous joint or partial control. The simple standard set forth in § 33 (b) protects the interests of both employees and employers, and is consistent with the general policy of the Act to encourage the prompt and efficient administration of compensation claims. See Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 449 U. S. 268, 282.
Ill
Although the assignment at the end of the 6-month period occurs automatically, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that the employee retains a right after assignment to compel the assignee either to bring a third-party suit or to reassign the cause of action to the employee in response to a formal request to do so. See Caldwell v. Ogden Sea Transport, Inc., 618 F. 2d 1037 (1980). The court “readily found” the procedural mechanism for implementing this nonstatutory right to a reassignment, id., at 1046, but we find no evidence that Congress created either the substantive right itself or the procedural rights that the court discerned.
The predicate for the Fourth Circuit’s analysis was an assumption that Congress did not intend to allow the longshoreman to lose his rights against a third party simply because (a) he failed to take any action within six months and (b) his employer decided not to sue the third party thereafter. To avoid the “practical problem” presented in such a situation, the court fashioned a “solution” that the Act “does not specifically provide.” Id., at 1045. We are persuaded that the reason Congress did not specifically provide the solution which the court readily found is that Congress did indeed intend to require the employee either to act promptly or to accept the consequences of an assignment of his claim to the employer. One of the consequences of such an assignment is the risk that the employer will choose not to sue. The comprehensive character of the procedures outlined in the Act precludes the fashioning of an entirely new set of remedies to deal with an aspect of a problem that Congress expressly addressed. The fact that parties sometimes fail to assert meritorious claims within the period authorized by law is not a sufficient reason for refusing to enforce an unequivocal statutory bar.
IV
Finally, relying upon Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U. S. 256, petitioners argue that Congress’ failure to amend § 33 (b) in 1972, when the Act was thoroughly re-examined, evidences implicit congressional approval of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Wynn, 120 U. S. App. D. C. 13, 343 F. 2d 295 (1965) (per curiam). In that case, the court held that a longshoreman who has accepted compensation under an award may maintain a third-party action whenever it becomes evident that his employer has no intention to file suit on the assigned claim. Id., at 16, 343 F. 2d, at 298. See also Joyner v. F & B Enterprises, Inc., 145 U. S. App. D. C. 262, 264, 448 F. 2d 1185, 1187 (1971). The court construed the 1959 amendments as enlarging the employee’s protection, and considered the rationale of Czapliehi to apply whenever a potential conflict of interest is present. In its judgment, the employer’s failure to sue was sufficient evidence of a conflict to justify an independent action by the employee, notwithstanding the assignment provisions in the Act. 120 U. S. App. D. C., at 16, 343 F. 2d, at 298.
For reasons already stated, we are satisfied that that opinion did not correctly construe the 1959 amendments. It is true that Congress did not expressly disclaim that case in 1972, but that legislative inaction does not modify the plain terms of the 1959 amendments. Nor did Congress expressly endorse the Wynn decision. More importantly, the statutory interpretation announced in Wynn can hardly be compared to the well-established rule of maritime law at issue in Edmonds. There is no reason to believe that “Congress has relied upon conditions” that Wynn created. Edmonds, supra, at 273. In fact, the statutory changes adopted in 1972 are entirely consistent with our interpretation of § 33 (b). Moreover, those changes remind us that one of the purposes of the Act is to minimize the need for litigation as a means of providing compensation for injured workmen. See Bloomer, 445 U. S., at 86.
Three of the 1972 Amendments are pertinent. First, the level of benefits was substantially increased, thereby increasing the likelihood that the statutory compensation recoverable without proof of fault would be adequate. Second, the shipowner’s right to seek indemnity from the stevedore under Ryan Stevedoring was eliminated, thereby removing a category of litigation from the courts, placing more definite limits on the stevedore’s insurance costs, and removing a potential source of conflict between the interests of employers and employees. Third, the shipowner’s nearly absolute liability for unseaworthiness was eliminated, thereby further narrowing the area of potential litigation and increasing the relative importance of statutory awards as the favored method of compensation. See generally Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, ante, at 164-165. In making these changes, Congress necessarily balanced the conflicting interests of the vessel owner, the stevedore, and the longshoreman. As with other problems of interpreting the intent of Congress in fashioning various details of this legislative compromise, the wisest course is to adhere closely to what Congress has written. The meaning of § 33 (b) is plain and should be respected.
V
In sum, we conclude that the Court of Appeals in these cases correctly held that § 33 (b) precludes petitioners from pursuing their third-party claims. Whatever the continued validity of our decision in Czaplicki, a question we need not and do not decide today, these cases do not involve “the peculiar facts” on which Czaplicki was based. Rather, petitioners essentially have relied upon conflicts inherent in the statutory scheme and in the relationships among longshoremen, stevedores, and shipowners. The notion adopted in some post-Czaplicki decisions that a conflict of interest may be presumed whenever an employer does not sue on an assigned claim is simply untenable in light of the plain statutory language and the history of the 1959 and 1972 Amendments. We leave for another day the question whether an assignment under § 33 (b) will bar a longshoreman’s third-party action if there is specific evidence of a serious conflict of interest Congress could not have foreseen when it enacted and amended § 33.
The judgments of the Court of Appeals are
Affirmed.
Although a single petition for certiorari was filed on behalf of the three petitioners, their lawsuits proceeded independently of one another at earlier stages of the litigation. Three separate District Court opinions were issued. See Rodriguez v. Compass Skipping Co., 456 F. Supp. 1014 (SDNY 1978); Perez v. Arya National Shipping Line, Ltd., 468 F. Supp. 799 (SDNY 1979); Barulec v. Ove Skou, R. A., 471 F. Supp. 358 (SDNY 1979). The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in Rodriguez in a published opinion, 617 F. 2d 955 (1980), and on the same day affirmed the Perez and Barulec decisions in unpublished orders citing its opinion in Rodriguez. See Barulec v. Ove Skou, R. A., 622 F. 2d 572 (1980); Perez v. Arya National Shipping Line, Ltd., 622 F. 2d 575 (1980).
Section 33 (b) of the Act provides:
“Acceptance of such compensation under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner or [Benefits Review] Board shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages against such third person unless such person shall commence an action against such third person within six months after such award.” 44 Stat. (part 2) 1440, as amended, 33 U. S. C. §933 (b).
In the Rodriguez and Barulec cases, the plaintiffs and their employers agreed to settlements in informal conferences convened by the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. Although a since-amended regulation ■required that such settlements be embodied in formal compensation orders, see 20 CFR § 702.315 (a) (1976), no formal orders were entered in these cases. Accordingly, the plaintiffs argued in the lower courts that the assignment provision of § 33 (b) had not been activated because they had not accepted “compensation under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner or Board,” as required by the statute. The District Courts rejected petitioners’ argument, concluding that settlement agreements reached after official informal conferences were equivalent to formal orders for purposes of § 33 (b). See Rodriguez, supra, at 1018-1020; Barulec, 471 F. Supp., at 360-362. The Court of Appeals agreed. See 617 F. 2d, at 958-960. Although petitioners challenged this ruling in their petition for certiorari, our order granting the petition did not extend to this question. 449 U. S. 818. Accordingly, for purposes of our decision, we assume that their acceptance of compensation operated as an assignment under § 33 (b). Petitioner Perez apparently did not contend below that he had not accepted “compensation under an award” within the meaning of § 33 (b). See 468 F. Supp. 799 (SDNY 1979).
Rodriguez filed suit approximately 32 months, Perez filed suit approximately 15 months, and Barulec filed suit approximately 1 year after accepting -compensation. See 617 F. 2d, at 957; Perez, 468 F. Supp., at 800; Barulec, 471 F. Supp., at 359.
The Act expressly 'provides that the employee is not required to elect between his right to compensation from his employer and his claim for damages against a third party. Section 33 (a), as set forth in 33 U. S. C. § 933 (a), provides:
“If on account of a disability or death for which compensation is payable under this chapter the person entitled to such compensation determines that some person other than the employer or a person or persons in his employ is liable in damages, he need not elect whether to receive such compensation or to recover damages against such third person.” Section 5 (b) of the Act, as set forth in 33 U. S. C. §905 (b), provides:
“In the event of injury to a person covered under this chapter caused by the negligence of a vessel, then such person, or anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages by reason thereof, may bring an action against such vessel as a third party in accordance with the provisions of section 933 of this title, and the employer shall not be liable to the vessel for such damages directly or indirectly and any agreements or warranties to the contrary shall be void. If such person was employed by the vessel to provide stevedoring services, no such action shall be permitted if the injury was caused by the negligence of persons engaged in providing stevedoring services to the vessel. If such person was employed by the vessel to provide ship building or repair services, no such action shall be permitted if the injury was caused by the negligence of persons engaged in providing ship building or repair services to the vessel. The liability of the vessel under this subsection shall not be based upon the warranty of seaworthiness or a breach thereof at the time the injury occurred. The remedy provided in this subsection shall be exclusive of all other remedies against the vessel except remedies available under this chapter.”
In all three eases, although the District Courts rejected the contention that a stevedore’s failure to pursue an assigned claim, without more, establishes a conflict of interest resulting in reassignment of the claim to the longshoreman, the plaintiffs were given an opportunity to present evidence establishing a specific conflict of interest, such as that found in Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud, 351 U. S. 525. See Rodriguez, supra, at 1023; Perez, 468 F. Supp., at 801; Barulec, 471 F. Supp., at 362. Despite the opportunity to pursue further discovery, none of the plaintiffs was able to present evidence supporting his conflict-of-interest allegation, and the District Courts accordingly entered summary judgment in favor of the shipowners.
See n. 1, supra.
The Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Caldwell eight days after the Rodriguez opinion was issued by the Second Circuit.
Section 33 (f) of the Act, as set forth in 33 U. S. C. § 933 (f), provides:
“If the person entitled to compensation institutes proceedings within the period prescribed in subdivision (b) of this section the employer shall be required to pay as compensation under this chapter a sum equal to the excess of the amount which the Secretary determines is payable on account of such injury or death over the amount recovered against such third person.”
Section 33 (e) of the Act, as set forth in 33 U. S. C. §933 (e), provides:
“Any amount recovered by such employer on account of such assignment, whether or not as the result of a compromise, shall be distributed as follows:
“(1) The employer shall retain an amount equal to—
“(A) the expenses incurred by him in respect to such proceedings or compromise (including a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the deputy commissioner or Board);
“(B) the cost of all benefits actually furnished by him to the employee under section 907 of this title;
“(C) all amounts paid as compensation;
“(D) the present value of all amounts thereafter payable as compensation, such present value to be computed in accordance with a schedule prepared by the Secretary, and the present value of the cost of all benefits thereafter to be furnished under section 907 of this title, to be estimated by the deputy commissioner, and the amounts so computed and estimated to be retained by the employer as a trust fund to pay such compensation and the cost of such benefits as they become due, and to pay any sum finally remaining in excess thereof to the person entitled to compensation or to the representative; and
“(2) The employer shall pay any excess to the person entitled to compensation or to the representative, less one-fifth of such excess which shall belong to the employer.”
In Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U. S. 256, 269, we described § 33 (b) :
“Under § 933 (b), an administrative order for benefits operates as an assignment to the stevedore-employer of the longshoreman’s rights against the third party unless the longshoreman sues within six months.”
See nn. 3, 4, supra.
As originally enacted, and until 1959, §33 (a) read:
"If on account of a disability or death for which compensation is payable under this Act the person entitled to such compensation determines that some person other than the employer is liable in damages, he may elect, by giving notice to the deputy commissioner in such manner as the commission may provide, to receive such compensation or to recover damages against such third person.” 44 Stat. (part 2) 1440.
The original § 33 (b) provided:
“Acceptance of such compensation shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages against such third person, whether or not the person entitled to compensation has notified the deputy commissioner of his election.” 44 Stat. (part 2) 1440.
From 1938 until 1959, §33 (b) provided:
"Acceptance of such compensation under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages against such third person.” 52 Stat. 1168.
The amendment’s purpose was explained in the House Report:
“The purpose of this amendment is to remove possible cause of complaint regarding the operation of the provision in subdivision (b) of section 33 in making the mere acceptance of compensation work automatically an assignment to the employer of all rights of action against the third party tort feasor. Acceptance of compensation without knowledge of the effect upon such rights may work grave injustice. The assignment of this right of action against the third party might properly be contingent upon the acceptance of compensation under an award in a compensation order issued by the deputy commissioner, thus giving opportunity to the injured person... to consider the acceptance of compensation from the employer with the resulting loss of right to bring suit in damages against the third party, or a refusal of compensation so as to pursue the remedy against the third party alleged to be liable for the injury.” H. R. Rep. No. 1945, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 9 (1938).
See also Hernandez v. Costa Armatori, S. p. A., 467 P. Supp. 1064, 1066 (EDNY 1979), affirmance order, 622 P. 2d 573 (CA2 1980).
In the interim between the 1938 amendment and the decision in Czaplicki, this Court issued two decisions of some significance to the present case. In 1946, in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85, the Court concluded that an injured longshoreman could pursue a third-party claim against a shipowner for unseaworthiness, as well as for negligence. In 1956, in Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 350 U. S. 124, the Court held that a shipowner found liable to a longshoreman for damages in a third-party action could seek indemnification from the stevedore based upon the stevedore's contractual duty to provide workmanlike service. Congress in 1972 overruled both Sieracki and Ryan Stevedoring. See Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U. S., at 262.
Section 33 (i) of the Act as it read in 1956 provided that a stevedore's compensation insurer was subrogated to the stevedore’s rights in the assigned claim. “Travelers, therefore, was the proper party to sue on those rights of action.” 351 U. S., at 529. The subrogation provision is now §33 (h), 33 U. S. C. §933 (h).
The Court explained its reasoning in detail:
"[T]he injured employee has an interest in his right of action even after it has been assigned. Normally, this interest will not be inconsistent with that of the assignee, for presumably the assignee will want to recoup the payments made to the employee. Since the assignee’s right to recoup comes before the employee’s interest, and because the assignee is likely to be in a better position to prosecute any claims against a third party, control over the right of action is given to the assignee, who can either institute proceedings for the recovery of damages against a third person, 'or may compromise with such third person either without or after instituting such proceeding.’ §33 (d), 33 U. S. C. §933 (d). In giving the assignee exclusive control over the right of action, however, we think that the statute presupposes that the assignee’s interests will not be in conflict with those of the employee, and that through action of the assignee the employee will obtain his share of the proceeds of the right of action, if there is a recovery. Here, where there is such a conflict of interests, the inaction of the assignee operates to defeat the employee’s interest in any possible recovery. Since an action by Travelers would, in effect, be an action against itself, Czaplicki is the only person with sufficient adverse interest to bring suit. In this circumstance, we think the statute should be construed to allow Czaplicki to enforce, in his own name, the rights of action that were his originally.” 351 U. S., at 531.
At several points in the Czaplicki opinion, the Court emphasized the limited nature of its holding:
“Czaplieki’s rights of action were held by the party most likely to suffer were the rights of action to be successfully enforced. In these circumstances, we cannot agree that Czaplicki is precluded by the assignment of his rights of action from enforcing those rights in an action brought by himself.” Id,., at 530.
“Respondents contend that since Czaplicki did not, under §33 (a), 33 U. S. C. § 933 (a), elect to proceed against third parties, but rather chose to accept compensation, he can in no event revoke this election and maintain this suit. But, as this Court has already pointed out, ‘election not to sue a third party and assignment of the cause of action are two sides of the same coin.’ American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 330 U. S. 446, 455. Czaplicki can bring suit not because there has been no assignment, but because in the peculiar facts here there is no other procedure by which he can secure his statutory share in the proceeds, if any, of his right of action. For the same reason, we hold that the election to accept compensation, as a step toward the compensation award, does' not bar this suit.” Id., at 532-533.
The Court of Appeals explained the conflict created by Ryan Stevedoring :
“Since any recovery by the injured employee against the shipowner could be recouped in an action by the shipowner against the stevedoring company, the practical effect of the Ryan case is to cause the employer-stevedoring companies, who may anticipate a shipowner’s claim to indemnity to resist the making of any payment to the injured stevedore until an award is made, at which time assignment of the' cause of action by reason of the provisions of the statute takes place. When the statutory assignment has taken place the employer-stevedoring company will then refuse to bring an action against the shipowner, and by the same token would also refuse to reassign the cause of action to the injured stevedore, for to do so might result in an eventual high award by way of indemnification against the stevedoring company and hence against the insurance carrier.” 257 E. 2d., at 545.
The Court
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Rule 23 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
“Cases required to be tried by jury shall be so tried unless the defendant waives a jury trial in writing with the approval of the court and the consent of the government.”
Petitioner challenges the permissibility of this rule, arguing that the Constitution gives a defendant in a federal criminal case the right to waive a jury trial whenever he believes such action to be in his best interest, regardless of whether the prosecution and the court are willing to acquiesce in the waiver.
Petitioner was charged in a federal district court with 30 infractions of the mail fraud statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1341 (1958 ed.). The gist of the indictment was that he used the mails to dupe amateur songwriters into sending him money for the marketing of their songs. On the opening day of trial petitioner offered in writing to waive a trial by jury “[f]or the purpose of shortening the trial.” The trial court was willing to approve the waiver, but the Government refused to give its consent. Petitioner was subsequently convicted by a jury on 29 of the 30 counts and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. We granted certiorari, 377 U. S. 903.
Petitioner’s argument is that a defendant in a federal criminal case has not only an unconditional constitutional right, guaranteed by Art. Ill, § 2, and the Sixth Amendment, to a trial by jury, but also a correlative right to have his case decided by a judge alone if he considers such a trial to be to his advantage. He claims that at common law the right to refuse a jury trial preceded the right to demand one, and that both before and at the time our Constitution was adopted criminal defendants in this country had the right to waive a jury trial. Although the Constitution does not in terms give defendants an option between different modes of trial, petitioner argues that the provisions relating to jury trial are for the protection of the accused. Petitioner further urges that since a defendant can waive other constitutional rights without the consent of the Government, he must necessarily have a similar right to waive a jury trial and that the Constitution’s guarantee of a fair trial gives defendants the right to safeguard themselves against possible jury prejudice by insisting on a trial before a judge alone. Turning his attention to Rule 23 (a), petitioner claims that the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are violated by placing conditions on the ability to waive trial by jury.
We have examined petitioner’s arguments and find them to be without merit. We can find no evidence that the common law recognized that defendants had the right to choose between court and jury trial. Although instances of waiver of jury trial can be found in certain of the colonies prior to the adoption of the Constitution, they were isolated instances occurring pursuant to colonial “constitutions” or statutes and were clear departures from the common law. There is no indication that the colonists considered the ability to waive a jury trial to be of equal importance to the right to demand one. Having found that the Constitution neither confers nor recognizes a right of criminal defendants to have their cases tried before a judge alone, we also conclude that Rule 23 (a) sets forth a reasonable procedure governing attempted waivers of jury trials.
I.
English Common Law. The origin of trial by jury in England is not altogether clear. At its inception it was an alternative to one of the older methods of proof — trial by compurgation, ordeal or battle. I Holdsworth, A History of English Law 326 (7th ed. 1956). Soon after the thirteenth century trial by jury had become the principal institution for criminal cases, Jenks, A Short History of English Law 52 (5th ed. 1938); yet, even after the older procedures of compurgation, ordeal and battle had passed into disuse, the defendant technically retained the right to be tried by one of them. Before a defendant could be subjected to jury trial his “consent” was required, but the Englishmen of the period had a concept of “consent” somewhat different from our own. The Statute of Westminster I, 1275, 3 Edw. 1, c. 12, which described defendants who refused to submit to jury trial as “refusing] to stand to the Common Law of the Land,” marks the beginning of the horrendous practice known as -peine forte et dure by which recalcitrant defendants were tortured until death or until they “consented” to a jury trial.
It is significant that defendants who refused to submit to a jury were not entitled to an alternative method of trial, and it was only in 1772 that peine forte et dure was officially abolished in England. By a statute enacted in that year, 12 Geo. 3, c. 20, a defendant who stood mute when charged with a felony was deemed to have pleaded guilty. Not until 1827, long after the adoption of our Constitution, did England provide by statute, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 28, for the trial of those who stood mute. Even this statute did not give the defendant the right to plead his case before a judge alone, but merely provided that he would be subject to jury trial without his formal consent.
Thus, as late as 1827 the English common law gave criminal defendants no option as to the mode of trial. The closest the common law came to such a procedure was that of the “implied confession,” described briefly in 2 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, c. 31 (6th ed. 1787), by which defendants accused of minor offenses did not explicitly admit their guilt but threw themselves on the King’s mercy and expressed their willingness to submit to a small fine. Despite the “implied confession,” the court heard evidence and could discharge the defendant if it found the evidence wanting. Griswold, The Historical Development of Waiver of Jury Trial in Criminal Cases, 20 Va. L. Rev. 655, 660 (1934). It cannot seriously be argued that this obscure and insignificant procedure, having no applicability to serious offenses, establishes the proposition that at common law defendants had the right to choose the method of trial in all criminal cases. On the contrary, “[b]y its intrinsic fairness as contrasted with older modes, and by the favor of the crown and the judges, [trial by jury] grew fast to be regarded as the one regular common-law mode of trial, always to be had when no other was fixed.” Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law 60 (1898).
The Colonial Experience. The colonies which most freely permitted waiver of jury trial as a matter of course were Massachusetts and Maryland. The “first constitution” of Massachusetts — The Body of Liberties of 1641— contained as Liberty XXIX the following:
“In all actions at law, it shall be the liberty of the plaintiff and defendant, by mutual consent, to choose whether they will be tried by the Bench or by a Jury, unless it be where the law upon just reason has otherwise determined. The like liberty shall be granted to all persons in Criminal cases.”
It should be noted that Liberty XXIX’s language explicitly provided that the right to choose trial by judge alone was subject to change “where the law upon just reason has otherwise determined.” Moreover, those drafting and administering the Liberty recognized that it was a departure from the English common law. Grinnell, To What Extent is the Right to Jury Trial Optional in Criminal Cases in Massachusetts? 8 Mass. L. Q. No. 5, 7, 23-25 (1923). Several cases can be cited, at least up until 1692, in which defendants in Massachusetts waived jury trial and were tried by the bench. See Grinnell, supra, at 27-29; Griswold, supra, at 661-664. However, from 1692 on, in light of increasing hostility to the Crown, the colonists of Massachusetts stressed their right to trial by jury, not their right to choose between alternate methods of trial. Instead of being a settled part of the jurisprudence of Massachusetts at the time of the Constitutional Convention, the ability to choose between judge and jury had become a forgotten option in Massachusetts:
“With the state of mind then existing among the colonists, presumably nobody bothered about this question of any one’s wanting to waive a jury. The General Court was then concerned with the question of a man’s right to a jury when he asked for it, which they thought in danger. The ‘Body of Liberties’ never having been printed and the nineteen original official manuscript copies having doubtless been lost or forgotten, the ‘bar’ (which did not begin to develop until the beginning of the 18th century) and the 18th century people, probably grew up without any general knowledge of the expressly optional character of the right to a jury established as a 'fundamentar by the common law of Massachusetts in the colonial period.”
It appears that from the early days of Maryland’s colonization minor cases were tried by judges sitting alone. Bond, The Maryland Practice of Trying Criminal Cases by Judges Alone, Without Juries, 11 A. B. A. J. 699, 700 (1925). But the defendant who submitted his case to the judge was not considered on a par with the defendant who chose to have a jury hear his case, as is evidenced by a Maryland statute of 1793 which provided that submission to a judge would be considered an admission of crime (analogous to the "implied confession” of minor offenses under English common law) at least insofar as to render the person submitting his case to a judge liable for the costs of prosecution. In 1809, Maryland declared by statute that waiver of jury trial was to be encouraged and the willing defendant was to suffer no increased liability for so doing. It was not until 1823, however, that major cases began also to be submitted to judges alone, and the first major case so submitted caused some surprise and sharp comment in Maryland legal circles. See Bond, supra, at 701.
Other possible examples of optional jury trial procedures can be cited in colonial New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. See Gris-wold, supra, at 664-667. The most that can be said for these examples is that they are evidence that the colonists believed it was possible to try criminal defendants without a jury. They in no way show that there was any general recognition of a defendant’s right to be tried by the court instead of by a jury. Indeed, if there had been recognition of such a right, it would be difficult to understand why Article III and the Sixth Amendment were not drafted in terms which recognized an option.
The Constitution and Its Judicial Interpretation. The proceedings at the Constitutional Convention give little insight into what was meant by the direction in Art. Ill, § 2, that the “Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be by jury.” The clause was clearly intended to protect the accused from oppression by the Government, see III Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention 101 (James Wilson), 221-222 (Luther Martin) (1911); but, since the practice of permitting defendants a choice as to the mode of trial was not widespread, it is not surprising that some of the framers apparently believed that the Constitution designated trial by jury as the exclusive method of determining guilt, see The Federalist, No. 83 (Alexander Hamilton) (Cooke ed. 1961); IV Elliot’s Debates 145, 171 (James Iredell) (2d ed. 1876); III Elliot’s Debates 521 (Edmund Pendleton) (2d ed. 1876).
In no known federal criminal case in the period immediately following the adoption of the Constitution did a defendant claim that he had the right to insist upon a trial without a jury. Indeed, in United States v. Gibert, 25 Fed. Cas. 1287 (No. 15204) (C. C. D. Mass. 1834), Mr. Justice Story, while sitting on circuit, indicated his view that the Constitution made trial by jury the only permissible method of trial. Similar views were expressed by other federal judges. See Ex parte McClusky, 40 F. 71, 74-75 (C. C. D. Ark. 1889) (by implication); United States v. Taylor, 11 F. 470, 471 (C. C. D. Kan. 1882) (dictum).
Although not necessary to the holding in the case, in Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343, this Court also expressed a view that the Constitution made jury trial the exclusive method of determining guilt in all federal criminal cases. However, in Schick v. United States, 195 U. S. 65, the Court decided there was no constitutional requirement that petty offenses be tried by jury. These two decisions were construed by the lower federal courts as establishing a rule that in all but petty offenses jury trial was a constitutional imperative. See Coates v. United States, 290 F. 134 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1923); Blair v. United States, 241 F. 217, 230 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1917); Frank v. United States, 192 F. 864, 867-868 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1911) (dictum); Low v. United States, 169 F. 86 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1909); Dickinson v. United States, 159 F. 801 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1908), cert. denied, 213 U. S. 92.
The issue whether a defendant could waive a jury trial in federal criminal cases was finally presented to this Court in Patton v. United States, 281 U. S. 276. The Patton case came before the Court on a certified question from the Eighth Circuit. The wording of the question, id., at 287, is significant:
“After the commencement of a trial in a Federal Court before a jury of twelve men upon an indictment charging a crime, punishment for which may involve a penitentiary sentence, if one juror becomes incapacitated and unable to further proceed with his work as a juror, can defendant or defendants and the Government through its official representative in charge of the case consent to the trial proceeding to a finality with eleven jurors, and can defendant or defendants thus waive the right to a trial and verdict by a constitutional jury of twelve men?”
The question explicitly stated that the Government had agreed with the defendant that his trial should proceed with 11 jurors. The case did not involve trial before a judge alone, but the Court believed that trial before 11 jurors was as foreign to the common law as was trial before a judge alone, and therefore both forms of waiver “in substance amount[ed] to the same thing.” Id., at 290. The Court examined Art. Ill, § 2, and the Sixth Amendment and concluded that a jury trial was a right which the accused might “forego at his election.” Id., at 298. The Court also spoke of jury trial as a “privilege,” not an “imperative requirement,” ibid., and remarked that jury trial was principally for the benefit of the accused, id., at 312. Nevertheless, the Court was conscious of the precise question that was presented by the Eighth Circuit, and concluded its opinion, id., at 312-313, with carefully chosen language that dispelled any notion that the defendant had an absolute right to demand trial before a judge sitting alone:
“Not only must the right of the accused to a trial by a constitutional jury be jealously preserved, but the maintenance of the jury as a fact finding body in criminal cases is of such importance and has such a place in our traditions, that, before any waiver can become effective, the consent of government counsel and the sanction of the court must be had, in addition to the express and intelligent consent of the defendant. And the duty of the trial court in that regard is not to be discharged as a mere matter of rote, but with sound and advised discretion, with an eye to avoid unreasonable or undue departures from that mode of trial or from any of the essential elements thereof, and with a caution increasing in degree as the offenses dealt with increase in gravity.”
In Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 277-278, this Court reaffirmed the position taken in Patton that “one charged with a serious federal crime may dispense with his Constitutional right to jury trial, where this action is taken with his express, intelligent consent, where the Government also consents, and where such action is approved by the responsible judgment of the trial court.”
II.
Thus, there is no federally recognized right to a criminal trial before a judge sitting alone, but a defendant can, as was held in Patton, in some instances waive his right to a trial by jury. The question remains whether the effectiveness of this waiver can be conditioned upon the consent of the prosecuting attorney and the trial judge.
The ability to waive a constitutional right does not ordinarily carry with it the right to insist upon the opposite of that right. For example, although a defendant can, under some circumstances, waive his constitutional right to a public trial, he has no absolute right to compel a private trial, see United States v. Kobli, 172 F. 2d 919, 924 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1949) (by implication); although he can waive his right to be tried in the State and district where the crime was committed, he cannot in all cases compel transfer of the case to another district, see Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 376 U. S. 240, 245; Kersten v. United States, 161 F. 2d 337, 339 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1947), cert. denied, 331 U. S. 851; and although he can waive his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, it has never been seriously suggested that he can thereby compel the Government to try the case by stipulation. Moreover, it has long been accepted that the waiver of constitutional rights can be subjected to reasonable procedural regulations: Rule 7 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure sets forth the procedure to be followed for waiver of the right to be prosecuted by indictment; Rule 20 describes the procedure for waiver of the right to be tried in the district in which an indictment or information is pending against a defendant; and Rule 44 deals with the waiver of the right to counsel.
Trial by jury has been established by the Constitution as the “normal and . . . preferable mode of disposing of issues of fact in criminal cases.” Patton v. United States, 281 U. S. 276, 312. As with any mode that might be devised to determine guilt, trial by jury has its weaknesses and the potential for misuse. However, the mode itself has been surrounded with safeguards to make it as fair as possible — for example, venue can be changed when there is a well-grounded fear of jury prejudice, Rule 21 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and prospective jurors are subject to voir dire examination, to challenge for cause, and to peremptory challenge, Rule 24 (a) and (b).
In light of the Constitution’s emphasis on jury trial, we find it difficult to understand how the petitioner can submit the bald proposition that to compel a defendant in a criminal case to undergo a jury trial against his will is contrary to his right to a fair trial or to due process. A defendant’s only constitutional right concerning the method of trial is to an impartial trial by jury. We find no constitutional impediment to conditioning a waiver of this right on the consent of the prosecuting attorney and the trial judge when, if either refuses to consent, the result is> simply that the defendant is subject to an impartial trial by jury — the very thing that the Constitution guarantees him. The Constitution recognizes an adversary system as the proper method of determining guilt, and the Government, as a litigant, has a legitimate interest in seeing that cases in which it believes a conviction is warranted are tried before the tribunal which the Constitution regards as most likely to produce a fair result. This recognition of the Government’s interest as a litigant has an analogy in Rule 24 (b) of the federal rules, which permits the Government to challenge jurors peremptorily.
We are aware that the States have adopted a variety of procedures relating to the waiver of jury trials in state criminal cases. Some have made waiver contingent on approval by the prosecutor, e. g., California (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 7), Indiana (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 9-1803 (1956 Repl. vol.), Alldredge v. Indiana, 239 Ind. 256, 156 N. E. 2d 888 (1959)), and Virginia (Va. Const. § 8, Va. Code Ann. § 19.1-192 (1950 Repl. vol.), Boaze v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 786, 183 S. E. 263 (1936)). Others, while not giving the prosecutor a voice, have made court approval a prerequisite for waiver, e. g., Georgia (Ga. Code Ann. § 102-106 (1955), Palmer v. State, 195 Ga. 661, 25 S. E. 2d 295 (1943)), and Washington (Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.060 (1963 Supp.)). Still others have provided that the question of waiver is a matter solely for the defendant’s informed decision, e. g., Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. §54-82 (1958)), and Illinois (Ill. Ann. Stat. c. 38, § 103-6 (Smith-Hurd ed. 1964), Illinois v. Spegal, 5 III. 2d 211, 125 N. E. 2d 468 (1955)). However, the framers of the federal rules were aware of possible alternatives when they recommended the present rule to this Court, see Orfield, Trial by Jury in Federal Criminal Procedure, 1962 Duke L. J. 29, 69-72; this Court promulgated the rule as recommended; and Congress can be deemed to have adopted it, 18 U. S. C. § 3771 (1958 ed.).
In upholding the validity of Rule 23 (a), we reiterate the sentiment expressed in Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78, 88, that the government attorney in a criminal prosecution is not an ordinary party to a controversy, but a “servant of the law” with a “twofold aim . . . that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.” It was in light of this concept of the role of prosecutor that Rule 23 (a) was framed, and we are confident that it is in this light that it will continue to be invoked by government attorneys. Because of this confidence in the integrity of the federal prosecutor, Rule 23 (a) does not require that the Government articulate its reasons for demanding a jury trial at the time it refuses to consent to a defendant’s proffered waiver. Nor should we assume that federal prosecutors would demand a jury trial for an ignoble purpose. We need not determine in this case whether there might be some circumstances where a defendant’s reasons for wanting to be tried by a judge alone are so compelling that the Government’s insistence on trial by jury would result in the denial to a defendant of an impartial trial. Petitioner argues that there might arise situations where “passion, prejudice . . . public feeling” or some other factor may render impossible or unlikely an impartial trial by jury. However, since petitioner gave no reason for wanting to forgo jury trial other than to save time, this is not such a case, and petitioner does not claim that it is.
Petitioner has also raised questions involving the instructions to the jury and alleged misconduct by the prosecuting attorney. We have examined the record and find that the jury was adequately instructed. In any event, no timely objection was made as required by Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and, in the absence of plain error, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Similarly without merit are petitioner’s specifications of misconduct by the prosecuting attorney during the trial, since the record reveals that the misconduct, if any, was neither purposeful nor flagrant, and the trial court’s admonitions to the jury seem to have been well designed to cure whatever prejudicial impact some of the prosecutor’s remarks may have had in this case.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
R.17.
Art. III, § 2, of the United States Constitution provides:
“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”
The Sixth Amendment provides:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
It appears that many hardy defendants were willing to be tortured to death rather than submit to a jury trial, not because of any inherent distrust of the jury system but because of their desire to avoid a conviction and thereby prevent forfeiture of their lands and the resultant hardships for their descendants. Cf. I Holdsworth, supra, at 326.
Grinnell, supra, at 33.
The Pennsylvania case of Proprietor v. Wilkins, Pennypacker’s Pennsylvania Colonial Cases 88 (1892), decided in 1685-1686, is of interest in that the court tried a fornication case without a jury over the objection of the prosecution. The punishment involved in the case was a 10-pound fine. The case is, therefore, little authority for the proposition that defendants had the right to waive jury trials in all cases.
In construing their own constitutions, which generally had clauses designed to preserve the common-law right to trial by jury, the state courts took a similarly limited view of the ability of a defendant to waive jury trial. Some state courts ruled that in the absence of a statute there could be no waiver of jury trial. See, e. g., Wilson v. State, 16 Ark. 601 (1855); State v. Maine, 27 Conn. 281 (1858); People v. Smith, 9 Mich. 193 (1861). Several other courts determined that the State could by statute prohibit waiver of jury trials. See, e. g., Arnold v. Nebraska, 38 Neb. 752, 57 N. W. 378 (1894) ; In re McQuown, 19 Okla. 347, 91 P. 689 (1907); State v. Battey, 32 R. I. 475, 80 A. 10 (1911); State v. Hirsch, 91 Vt. 330, 100 A. 877 (1917); Mays v. Commonwealth, 82 Va. 550 (1886). Some state courts interpreted their constitutions to say that under no circumstances could waiver be allowed. See, e. g., State v. Holt, 90 N. C. 749 (1884); Williams v. State, 12 Ohio St. 622 (1861). Several courts, of course, held that waiver of a jury was permissible, even in the absence of enabling legislation. See, e. g., State ex rel. Warner v. Baer, 103 Ohio St. 585, 134 N. E. 786 (1921) (overruling Williams v. State, supra); Ex parte King, 42 Okla. Cr. 46, 274 P. 682 (Okla. Crim. App. 1929). In Hallinger v. Davis, 146 U. S. 314, this Court held that a state statute permitting waiver of jury trial in criminal cases did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Petitioner’s Brief, p. 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:
|
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.
OPINION OF THE COURT
[562 U.S. 524]
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted review in this case to decide a question presented, but left unresolved, in District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 65-67, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 174 L. Ed. 2d 38 (2009): May a convicted state prisoner seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence assert that claim in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or is such a claim cognizable in federal court only when asserted in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254? The Courts of Appeals have returned diverse responses. Compare McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89, 99 (CA2 2007) (claim seeking DNA testing is cognizable under § 1983); Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 669 (CA7 2006) (same); and Bradley v. Pryor, 305 F.3d 1287, 1290-1291 (CA11 2002) (same), with Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 375 (CA4 2002) (claim is not cognizable under
[562 U.S. 525]
§ 1983); and Kutzner v. Montgomery County, 303 F.3d 339, 341 (CA5 2002) (per curiam) (same).
In Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 161 L. Ed. 2d 253 (2005), we comprehensively surveyed this Court’s decisions on the respective provinces of § 1983 civil rights actions and § 2254 federal habeas petitions. Habeas is the exclusive remedy, we reaffirmed, for the prisoner who seeks “immediate or speedier release” from confinement. Id., at 82, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 161 L. Ed. 2d 253. Where the prisoner’s claim would not “necessarily spell speedier release,” however, suit may be brought under § 1983. Ibid. Adhering to our opinion in Dotson, we hold that a postconviction claim for DNA testing is properly pursued in a § 1983 action. Success in the suit gains for the prisoner only access to the DNA evidence, which may prove exculpatory, inculpatory, or inconclusive. In no event will a judgment that simply orders DNA tests “necessarily impl[y] the unlawfulness of the State’s custody.” Id., at 81, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 161 L. Ed. 2d 253. We note, however, that the Court’s decision in Osborne severely limits the federal action a state prisoner may bring for DNA testing. Osborne rejected the extension of substantive due process to this area, 557 U.S., at 72, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 174 L. Ed. 2d 38, and left slim room for the prisoner to show that the governing state law denies him procedural due process, see id., at 71, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 174 L. Ed. 2d 38.
I
In 1995, a Texas jury convicted petitioner Henry Skinner and sentenced him to death for murdering his live-in girlfriend, Twila Busby, and her two sons. Busby was bludgeoned and choked with an axe handle and her sons were stabbed to death; the murders were committed in the house Busby shared with Skinner.
Skinner never denied his presence in the house when the killings occurred. He claimed, however, that he was incapacitated by large quantities of alcohol and codeine. The potent alcohol and drug mix, Skinner maintained at trial, rendered him physically unable to commit the brutal murders charged against him. Skinner identified, as a likely
[562 U.S. 526]
perpetrator, Busby’s uncle, Robert Donnell (now deceased), an ex-convict with a history of physical and sexual abuse. On direct appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) affirmed Skinner’s conviction and sentence. Skinner v. State, 956 S.W.2d 532, 546 (1997). The CCA’s opinion described the crime-scene evidence in detail:
“As they approached the house..., the police noticed a trail of blood spots on the ground running from the front porch to the fence line. There was a blood smear on the glass storm door and a knife on the front porch. Upon entering the residence, the police found Twila’s dead body on the living room floor.... An ax handle stained with blood and hair was leaning against the couch near her body and a black plastic trash bag containing a knife and a towel with wet brownish stains on it was laying between the couch and the coffee table.
“[One officer] proceeded to the bedroom where [Busby’s two sons] usually slept in bunk beds. [The officer] found [one] dead body laying face down on the upper bunk, covered by a blood spotted blanket.... A door leading out of the bedroom and into a utility room yielded further evidence. [He] noticed a bloody handprint located about 24 inches off the floor on the frame of this door. He also noted a bloody handprint on the door knob of the door leading from the kitchen to the utility room and a handprint on the knob of the door exiting from the utility room into the backyard.
“[When] police arrested [Skinner]... [t]hey found him standing in a closet wearing blood-stained socks and blood-stained blue jeans.” Id., at 536.
[562 U.S. 527]
Investigators also retained vaginal swabs taken from Busby.
In preparation for trial, “the State tested the blood on [Skinner’s] clothing, blood and hair from a blanket that partially covered one of the victims, and hairs on one of the victim’s back and cheeks.” Skinner v. State, 122 S.W.3d 808, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The State also tested fingerprint evidence. Some of this evidence—including bloody palm prints in the room where one victim was killed—implicated Skinner, but “fingerprints on a bag containing one of the knives” did not. Ibid. Items left untested included the knives found on the premises, the axe handle, vaginal swabs, fingernail clippings, and additional hair samples. See ibid.
In the decade following his conviction, Skinner unsuccessfully sought state and federal postconviction relief. See Skinner v. Quarterman, 576 F.3d 214 (CA5 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 975, 130 S. Ct. 1689, 176 L. Ed. 2d 187 (2010). He also pursued informal efforts to gain access to untested biological evidence the police had collected at the scene of the crime.
In 2001, more than six years after Skinner’s conviction, Texas enacted Article 64, a statute allowing prisoners to gain postconviction DNA testing in limited circumstances. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 64.01(a) (Vernon Supp. 2010). To obtain DNA testing under Article 64, a prisoner must meet one of two threshold criteria. He may show that, at trial, testing either was “not available” or was “available, but
[562 U.S. 528]
not technologically capable of providing probative results.” Art. 64.01(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, he may show that the evidence was not previously tested “through no fault” on his part, and that “the interests of justice” require a post-conviction order for testing. Art. 64.01(b)(1)(B). To grant a motion for postconviction testing, a court must make further findings, prime among them, the movant “would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing,” and “the [Article 64] request... [was] not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice.” Art. 64.03(a)(2).
Invoking Article 64, Skinner twice moved in state court, first in 2001 and again in 2007, for DNA testing of yet untested biological evidence. See supra, at 527, n. 3, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 240. Both motions were denied. Affirming the denial of Skinner’s first motion, the CCA held that he had failed to demonstrate a “reasonable probability... that he would not have been... convicted if the DNA test results were exculpatory.” Skinner v. State, 122 S.W.3d, at 813.
Skinner’s second motion was bolstered by discovery he had obtained in the interim. The CCA again affirmed the denial of relief under Article 64, this time on the ground that Skinner failed to meet the “no fault” requirement. See Skinner v. State, 293 S.W.3d 196, 200 (2009). During post-conviction proceedings, the CCA noted, trial counsel testified that he had not “ask[ed] for testing because he was afraid the
[562 U.S. 529]
DNA would turn out to be [Skinner’s].” Id., at 202. That decision, the CCA concluded, constituted “a reasonable trial strategy” that the court had no cause to second-guess. Id., at 209.
Skinner next filed the instant federal action for injunctive relief under § 1983, naming as defendant respondent Lynn Switzer, the District Attorney whose office prosecuted Skinner and has custody of the evidence Skinner would like to have DNA tested. Skinner’s federal-court complaint alleged that Texas violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by refusing to provide for the DNA testing he requested. Complaint ¶33, App. 20-21. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. App. 24-41. Under the governing Circuit precedent, Kutzner v. Montgomery County, 303 F.3d 339, the Magistrate Judge observed, postconviction requests for DNA evidence are cognizable only in habeas corpus, not under § 1983. App. 39. Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the District Court dismissed Skinner’s suit. Id., at 44-45.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, 363 Fed. Appx. 302 (2010) (per curiam), reiterating that “an action by a prisoner for post-conviction DNA testing is not cognizable under § 1983 and must instead be brought as a petition for writ of habeas corpus,” id., at 303. On Skinner’s petition, we granted certiorari, 560 U.S. 924, 130 S. Ct. 3323, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1219 (2010), and now reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judgment.
II
A
Because this case was resolved on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the question below was “not whether
[562 U.S. 530]
[Skinner] will ultimately prevail” on his procedural due process claim, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1974), but whether his complaint was sufficient to cross the federal court’s threshold, see Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 514, 122 S. Ct. 992, 152 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2002). Skinner’s complaint is not a model of the careful drafter’s art, but under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need not pin plaintiffs claim for relief to a precise legal theory. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires only a plausible “short and plain” statement of the plaintiffs claim, not an exposition of his legal argument. See 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1219, pp. 277-278 (3d ed. 2004 and Supp. 2010).
Skinner stated his due process claim in a paragraph alleging that the State’s refusal “to release the biological evidence for testing... has deprived [him] of his liberty interests in utilizing state procedures to obtain reversal of his conviction and/or to obtain a pardon or reduction of his sentence....” Complaint ¶33, App. 20-21. As earlier recounted, see supra, at 528-529, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 240-241, Skinner had twice requested and failed to obtain DNA testing under the only state-law procedure then available to him. See Complaint ¶¶22-31, App. 14-20. At oral argument in this Court, Skinner’s counsel clarified the gist of Skinner’s due process claim: He does not challenge the prosecutor’s conduct or the decisions reached by the CCA in applying Article 64 to his motions; instead, he challenges, as denying him procedural due process, Texas’ postconviction DNA statute “as construed” by the Texas courts. Tr. of Oral Arg. 56. See also id., at 52-53 (Texas courts, Skinner’s counsel argued, have “construed the statute to completely foreclose any prisoner who could have sought DNA testing prior to trial[,] but did not[,] from seeking testing” postconviction).
[562 U.S. 531]
The merits of Skinner’s federal-court complaint assailing the Texas statute as authoritatively construed, and particularly the vitality of his claim in light of Osborne, see supra, at 525, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 239—unad-dressed by the District Court or the Fifth Circuit—are not ripe for review. We take up here only the questions whether there is federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction over Skinner’s complaint, and whether the claim he presses is cognizable under § 1983.
B
Respondent Switzer asserts that Skinner’s challenge is “[j]urisdictionally [blarred” by what has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Brief for Respondent 48-49 (boldface deleted). In line with the courts below, we conclude that Rooker-Feldman does not bar Skinner’s suit.
As we explained in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005), the Rooker- Feldman doctrine has been applied by this Court only twice, i.e., only in the two cases from which the doctrine takes its name: first, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923), then 60 years later, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983). Both cases fit this pattern: The losing party in state court filed suit in a U. S. District Court after the state proceedings ended, complaining of an injury caused by the state-court judgment and seeking federal-court review and rejection of that judgment. Alleging federal-question jurisdiction, the plaintiffs in Rooker and Feldman asked the District Court to overturn the injurious state-court judgment. We held, in both cases, that the District Courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over such
[562 U.S. 532]
claims, for 28 U.S.C. § 1257 “vests authority to review a state court’s judgment solely in this Court.” See Exxon, 544 U.S., at 292, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454.
We observed in Exxon that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine had been construed by some federal courts “to extend far beyond the contours of the Rooker and Feldman cases.” 544 U.S., at 283, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454. Emphasizing “the narrow ground” occupied by the doctrine, id., at 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454, we clarified in Exxon that Rooker-Feldman “is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers... inviting district court review and rejection of [the state court’s] judgments,” 544 U.S., at 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454.
Skinner’s litigation, in light of Exxon, encounters no Rooker-Feldman shoal. “If a federal plaintiff ‘pres-entís] [an] independent claim,’ ” it is not an impediment to the exercise of federal jurisdiction that the “same or a related question” was earlier aired between the parties in state court. 544 U.S., at 292-293, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (quoting GASH Assocs. v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726, 728 (CA7 1993); first alteration in original); see In re Smith, 349 Fed. Appx. 12, 18 (CA6 2009) (Sutton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (a defendant’s federal challenge to the adequacy of state-law procedures for postconviction DNA testing is not within the “limited grasp” of Rooker-Feldman).
As earlier noted, see supra, at 530, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 242, Skinner does not challenge the adverse CCA decisions themselves; instead, he targets as unconstitutional the Texas statute they authoritatively construed. As the Court explained in Feldman, 460 U.S., at 487, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206, and reiterated in Exxon, 544 U.S., at 286, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454, a state-court decision is not reviewable by lower federal courts, but a statute or rule governing the decision may be challenged in a federal action. Skinner’s federal case falls
[562 U.S. 533]
within the latter category. There was, therefore, no lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over Skinner’s federal suit.
C
When may a state prisoner, complaining of unconstitutional state action, pursue a civil rights claim under § 1983, and when is habeas corpus the prisoner’s sole remedy? This Court has several times considered that question. Pathmarking here is Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994). The plaintiff in that litigation was a state prisoner serving time for manslaughter. He brought a § 1983 action for damages, alleging that he had been unlawfully investigated, arrested, tried, and convicted. Although the complaint in Heck sought monetary damages only, not release from confinement, we ruled that the plaintiff could not proceed under § 1983. Any award in his favor, we observed, would “necessarily imply” the invalidity of his conviction. See id., at 487, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383. When “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” the Court held, § 1983 is not an available remedy. Ibid. “But if... the plaintiffs action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of [his conviction or sentence], the [§ 1983] action should be allowed to proceed....” Ibid.
We summarized the relevant case law most recently in Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 161 L. Ed. 2d 253 (2005). That case involved prisoners who challenged the constitutionality of administrative decisions denying them parole eligibility. They could proceed under § 1983, the Court held, for they sought no “injunction ordering... immediate or speedier release into the community,” id.., at 82, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 161 L. Ed. 2d 253, and “a favorable judgment
[562 U.S. 534]
[would] not ‘necessarily imply the invalidity of [their] conviction [s] or sentence [s],’ ” ibid, (quoting Heck, 512 U.S., at 487, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383; first alteration added).
Measured against our prior holdings, Skinner has properly invoked § 1983. Success in his suit for DNA testing would not “necessarily imply” the invalidity of his conviction. While test results might prove exculpatory, that outcome is hardly inevitable; as earlier observed, see supra, at 525, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 239, results might prove inconclusive or they might further incriminate Skinner. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 647, 124 S. Ct. 2117, 158 L. Ed. 2d 924 (2004) (“[W]e were careful in Heck to stress the importance of the term ‘necessarily’ ”).
Respondent Switzer nevertheless argues, in line with Fifth Circuit precedent, see Kutzner, 303 F.3d, at 341, that Skinner’s request for DNA testing must be pursued, if at all, in an application for habeas corpus, not in a § 1983 action. The dissent echoes Switzer’s argument. See post, at 539, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 247-248. Although Skinner’s immediate plea is simply for an order requiring DNA testing, his ultimate aim, Switzer urges, is to use the test results as a platform for attacking his conviction. It suffices to point out that Switzer has found no case, nor has the dissent, in which the Court has recognized habeas as the sole remedy, or even an available one, where the relief sought would “neither terminat[e] custody, accelerate] the future date of release from custody, nor reduc[e] the level of custody” Dotson, 544 U.S., at 86, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 161 L. Ed. 2d 253 (Scalia, J., concurring).
Respondent Switzer and her amici forecast that a “vast expansion of federal jurisdiction... would ensue” were we to hold that Skinner’s complaint can be initiated under § 1983. See Brief for National District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae 8. In particular, they predict a proliferation of federal civil actions “seeking postconviction discovery of evidence [and] other relief inescapably associated
[562 U.S. 535]
with the central questions of guilt or punishment.” Id., at 6. These fears, shared by the dissent, post, at 542, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 249-250, are unwarranted.
In the Circuits that currently allow § 1983 claims for DNA testing, see supra, at 524, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 238, no evidence tendered by Switzer shows any litigation flood or even rainfall. The projected toll on federal courts is all the more implausible regarding DNA testing claims, for Osborne has rejected substantive due process as a basis for such claims. See supra, at 525, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 239.
More generally, in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 110 Stat. 1321-66, Congress has placed a series of controls on prisoner suits, constraints designed to prevent sportive filings in federal court. See, e.g., PLRA § 803(d) (adding 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to create new procedures and penalties for prisoner lawsuits under § 1983); PLRA § 804(a)(3) (adding 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) to require any prisoner proceeding in forma pau-peris to pay the full filing fee out of a percentage of his prison trust account); PLRA § 804(c)(3) (adding 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f) to require prisoners to pay the full amount of any cost assessed against them out of their prison trust account); PLRA § 804(d) (adding 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to revoke, with limited exception, in forma pau-peris privileges for any prisoner who has filed three or more
[562 U.S. 536]
lawsuits that fail to state a claim, or are malicious or frivolous). See also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 596-597, 118 S. Ct. 1584, 140 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1998) (PLRA aims to “discourage prisoners from filing claims that are unlikely to succeed,” and statistics suggest that the Act is “having its intended effect”).
Nor do we see any cause for concern that today’s ruling will spill over to claims relying on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963); indeed, Switzer makes no such assertion. Brady announced a constitutional requirement addressed first and foremost to the prosecution’s conduct pretrial. Brady proscribes withholding evidence “favorable to an accused” and “material to [his] guilt or to punishment.” Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 451, 129 S. Ct. 1769, 173 L. Ed. 2d 701 (2009). To establish that a Brady violation undermines a conviction, a convicted defendant must make each of three showings: (1) the evidence at issue is “favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching” (2) the State suppressed the evidence, “either willfully or inadvertently” and (3) “prejudice... ensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-282, 119 S. Ct. 1936, 144 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1999); see Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691, 124 S. Ct. 1256, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1166 (2004).
Unlike DNA testing, which may yield exculpatory, incriminating, or inconclusive results, a Brady claim, when successful postconviction, necessarily yields evidence undermining a conviction: Brady evidence is, by definition, always favorable to the defendant and material to his guilt or punishment. See Strickler, 527 U.S., at 296, 119 S. Ct. 1936, 144 L. Ed. 2d 286. And parties asserting Brady violations postconviction generally do seek a judgment qualifying them for “immediate or speedier release” from imprisonment. See Dotson, 544 U.S., at 82, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 161 L. Ed. 2d 253. Accordingly, Brady claims have ranked within the traditional core of habeas corpus and outside the province of § 1983. See Heck, 512 U.S., at 479, 490, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (claim that prosecutors and an investigator had “ ‘knowingly destroyed’ evidence ‘which was exculpatory in nature and could have proved [petitioner’s] innocence’ ” cannot be maintained under § 1983); Amaker v.
[562 U.S. 537]
Weiner, 179 F.3d 48, 51 (CA2 1999) (“claim [that] sounds under Brady v. Maryland... does indeed call into question the validity of [the] conviction”); Beck v. Muskogee Police Dept., 195 F.3d 553, 560 (CA10 1999) (same).
Ill
Finally, Switzer presents several reasons why Skinner’s complaint should fail for lack of merit. Those arguments, unaddressed by the courts below, are ripe for consideration on remand. “[M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view,” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S. Ct. 2113, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1020 (2005), we confine this opinion to the matter on which we granted cer-tiorari and express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of Skinner’s federal action.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
. At trial, a defense witness testified that, on the evening of the killings, Busby had spumed Donnell’s “rude sexual advances.’’ Skinner v. State, 956 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). A neighbor related at a federal postconviction hearing that she observed Donnell, a day or two after the murders, thoroughly cleaning the carpets and inside of his pickup truck. See Skinner v. Quarterman, 528 F.3d 336, 345 (CA5 2008).
. After Skinner’s conviction, the State performed DNA tests on certain additional materials, but Skinner took no part in the selection of those materials or their testing. Skinner maintains that these ex parte tests were inconclusive. See Complaint ¶19, App. 12 (this “testing raised more questions than it answered’’). But see Skinner v. State, 122 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (some findings were “inculpatory’’).
. Skinner’s trial counsel, although aware that biological evidence remained untested, did not request further testing. Postconviction, Skinner sought DNA testing of vaginal swabs and fingernail clippings taken from Busby, blood and hairs on a jacket found next to Busby’s body, and biological material on knives and a dish towel recovered at the crime scene. Complaint ¶22, App. 14-15.
. On the basis of discovery in a federal postconviction proceeding, an expert retained by Skinner concluded that Skinner, Busby, and her two sons could be excluded as sources of a hair collected from Busby’s right hand after the killings. See Record 190. See also Complaint ¶27, App. 18.
. The District Attorney, in response to Skinner’s second motion, informed the Texas District Court that “[t]o the best of the State’s information, knowledge, and belief, the items sought to be tested are still available for testing, the chain of custody is intact, and the items are in a condition to be tested although the State has not sought expert opinion in that regard.” Record 202. See also Complaint ¶29, App. 19.
. The State of Texas scheduled Skinner’s execution for March 24, 2010. We granted Skinner’s application to stay his execution until further action of this Court. 559 U.S. 1033, 130 S. Ct. 1948, 176 L. Ed. 2d 411 (2010).
. He also persistently sought the State’s voluntary testing of the materials he identified. See Complaint ¶31, App. 20.
. Unlike the respondent in District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 174 L. Ed. 2d 38 (2009), who “attempt[ed] to sidestep state process through... a federal lawsuit,” id., at 71, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 174 L. Ed. 2d 38, Skinner first resorted to state court, see supra, at 528-529, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 240-241. In this respect, Skinner is better positioned to urge in federal court “the inadequacy of the state-law procedures available to him in state postconviction relief.” Osborne, 557 U.S., at 71, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 174 L. Ed. 2d 38.
. The judgment assailed in Feldman was rendered by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, equivalent for this purpose to a State’s highest court.
. The Court further observed in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292-293, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005), that “[w]hen there is parallel state and federal litigation,” state preclusion law may become decisive, but “[p] reclusion... is not a jurisdictional matter.”
. Switzer asserts that Skinner could have raised his federal claim in the Article 64 proceeding. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 48. Even if that were so, “Rooker-Feldman is not simply preclusion by another name,” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 466, 126 S. Ct. 1198, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1059 (2006) (per curiam), and questions of preclusion unresolved below are “best left for full airing and decision on remand,” id., at 467, 126 S. Ct. 1198, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1059 (Ginsburg, J., concurring).
. The dissent would muddle the clear line Heck and Dotson drew, and instead would instruct district courts to resort to “first principles” each time a state prisoner files a § 1983 claim in federal court. Post, at 538, 543, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 247, 250.
. Unlike the parole determinations at issue in Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 161 L. Ed. 2d 253 (2005), Switzer urges, claims like Skinner’s require inquiry into the State’s proof at trial and therefore lie at ‘the core of the criminal proceeding itself.” Tr. of Oral Arg
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Cer-tiorari, 345 U. S. 991, to the Seventh Judicial District Court of Nevada, in and for the County of White Pine.
Per Curiam:
Judgment reversed. Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U. S. 128; Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a narrow question of statutory construction. Section 242(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Attorney General to arrest excludable aliens and, pending a determination of their deportability, either to hold them in custody or to release them on bond “containing such conditions as the Attorney General may prescribe.” 66 Stat. 208, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(1). We granted the Government's petition for cer-tiorari to decide "[w]hether th[at] provision prohibits promulgation of a rule generally requiring that release bonds contain a condition forbidding unauthorized employment pending determination of deportability." Pet. for Cert. I.
I
Prior to 1983, the regulations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) provided that, when an alien was released from custody pending deportation or exclusion proceedings, the INS could in its discretion include in the bond obtained to secure the alien's release a condition barring unauthorized employment. 8 CFR § 103.6(a)(2)(ii) (1982). In 1983, the Attorney General amended those regulations to include the following provision:
"(ii) Condition against unauthorized employment. A condition barring employment shall be included in an appearance and delivery bond in connection with a deportation proceeding or bond posted for the release of an alien in exclusion proceedings, unless the District Director determines that employment is appropriate." 8 CFR § 103.6(a)(2)(il) (1991).
In effect, the new regulation made “no-employment conditions” the rule rather than the exception.
Several individuals and organizations (respondents) filed this action challenging the validity of the new rule on statutory and constitutional grounds. Their complaint alleged that the new rule was invalid on its face and therefore could not be enforced even against aliens who may not lawfully accept employment in this country.
After finding that the plaintiffs had a fair chance of success on the merits, either on the ground that the statute did not authorize no-employment conditions because such conditions were irrelevant to securing an alien’s appearance at a subsequent deportation hearing, or on the ground that the regulation violated an alien’s constitutional right to due process, the District Court entered a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the rule. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, but held that the scope of the injunction should be limited to the named plaintiffs unless the District Court granted their motion to certify a class. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc. v. INS, 743 F. 2d 1365 (CA9 1984).
On remand, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of respondents on the ground that the regulation was beyond the statutory authority of the Attorney General and also certified a class consisting of “all those persons who have been or may in the future be denied the right to work pursuant to 8 CFR § 103.6.” National Center for Immigration Rights, Inc. v. INS, No. CV 83-7927-KN (CD Cal., July 9,1985), p. 1. The Court of Appeals again affirmed, concluding that the Attorney General’s statutory “authority under 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a) of the Act is limited to the imposition of bond conditions which tend to insure the alien’s appearance at future deportation proceedings. The peripheral concern of the Act with the employment of illegal aliens is not sufficient to support the imposition of a no-employment condition in every bond.” National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc. v. INS, 791 F. 2d 1351, 1356 (CA9 1986).
The Government petitioned for certiorari raising the same question that is now before us. The Government argued that because the regulation only barred “unauthorized” work by aliens, it merely added the threat of a bond revocation to the already existing prohibition against unauthorized employment. In view of the then-recent enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 100 Stat. 3359, which cast serious doubt on the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that employment of undocumented aliens was only a “peripheral concern” of the immigration laws, we vacated that court’s judgment and remanded for further consideration in the light of IRCA. 481 U. S. 1009 (1987). On remand, the District Court adhered to its original opinion that the Attorney General’s discretion to impose bond conditions is “limited to those [conditions] aimed at obtaining an undocumented worker’s appearance at' future immigration proceedings.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 68a. The District Court noted that the enactment of employer sanctions in IRCA made the question whether the employment of undocumented aliens is merely a “peripheral concern” of the INA more difficult, but concluded that this change in the law did not broaden the Attorney General’s discretion.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals again affirmed, but the majority did not rely on the District Court’s reasoning. 913 F. 2d 1350 (CA9 1990). The majority first rejected the Government’s interpretation of the new regulation as merely barring “‘unauthorized employment’”; the Court of Appeals construed the rule as a “blanket bond condition” applicable to aliens authorized to work as well as to those who had no such authority. Id., at 1353-1358. The majority then concluded that the Attorney General exceeded his statutory authority in promulgating the regulation, ruling that the Attorney General’s discretion in imposing bond conditions was subject to two constraints. First, the court ruled, a bond condition must relate either to securing the alien’s appearance at a subsequent hearing or to protecting the Nation from danger posed by active subversives. A no-employment condition was not related to either of these purposes. Id., at 1358-1372. Second, the Court of Appeals concluded, bond conditions may only be imposed on an individualized basis and therefore the “blanket rule” promulgated by the Attorney General was invalid. Id., at 1373-1374.
We granted certiorari, 499 U. S. 946 (1991), and now reverse.
II
It is appropriate that we preface our analysis by noting the narrowness of the question before us: We must decide whether the regulation on its face is invalid as inconsistent with the Attorney General’s statutory authority.
We first observe that the plaintiffs framed their challenge to the regulation as a facial challenge. See App. 16-27. We recognize that it is possible that the no-work condition may be improperly imposed on some aliens. That the regulation may be invalid as applied in such cases, however, does not mean that the regulation is facially invalid because it is without statutory authority. Cf. American Hospital Assn. v. NLRB, 499 U. S. 606, 619 (1991); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 632-633, n. 10 (1989). In this case, we need not and do not address such “as-applied” challenges to the regulation.
We also note that, in invalidating the contested regulation, the Court of Appeals relied solely on statutory grounds, and did not reach the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge. See 913 F. 2d, at 1358, n. 8. Accordingly, only the plaintiffs’ statutory challenge is before us and we resolve none of the constitutional claims raised by the plaintiffs’ initial complaint.
I H-< ) — I
The threshold question m this case concerns interpretation of the regulation, which as the Government itself concedes, “is not unambiguous.” Brief for Petitioners 23, n. 14. Indeed, as the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals suggested, much of this controversy could have been avoided by a more precise drafting of the regulation, either initially or in response to any of the several lower court opinions. See 913 F. 2d, at 1375 (Trott, J., dissenting).
The most critical ambiguity in the regulation is whether the proposed no-work conditions bar all employment or only unauthorized employment — stated another way, whether such conditions will be imposed on all bonds or only on bonds issued for aliens who lack authorization to work. Although the relevant paragraph of the regulation is entitled “Condition against unauthorized employment,” the text describes the restriction more broadly, as a “condition barring employment.” Based in part on this latter phrase, the Court of Appeals interpreted the regulation as barring all employment, whether authorized or unauthorized. In contrast, the Government contends that the regulation only concerns the imposition of bond conditions in the case of aliens who lack work authorization in the first place.
We agree with the Government’s interpretation of the regulation. In other contexts, we have stated that the title of a statute or section can aid in resolving an ambiguity in the legislation’s text. See Mead Corp. v. Tilley, 490 U. S. 714, 723 (1989); FTC v. Mandel Bros., Inc., 359 U. S. 385, 388-389 (1959). Such analysis obtains in this case as well. The text’s generic reference to “employment” should be read as a reference to the “unauthorized employment” identified in the paragraph’s title. Moreover, an agency’s reasonable, consistently held interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to deference. In this case, the Government has consistently maintained that the contested regulation only implicates bond conditions barring unauthorized employment.
Our conclusion that the regulation does not contemplate the inclusion of no-work conditions in bonds issued to aliens who are authorized to work is further supported by the text of the regulation, the agency’s comments when the rule was promulgated, the operating instructions issued to INS personnel, and the absence of any evidence that the INS has imposed such a condition on any such alien. We therefore accept the Solicitor General’s representation that the INS does not intend to apply the bond condition to prohibit authorized employment.
Accordingly, our decision today will not answer any of the questions concerning the validity of a regulation having the broader meaning ascribed to this regulation by the Court of Appeals. We thus have no occasion to consider whether the release of an alien who is authorized to work could be subjected to a “no-work” condition.
IV
Section 242(a) of the INA grants the Attorney General authority to release aliens under bonds “containing such conditions as the Attorney General may prescribe.” In ruling that the Attorney General’s discretion under this section was limited, the Court of Appeals relied on two cases in which we have interpreted similarly broad language in this statutory scheme: United States v. Witkovich, 353 U. S. 194 (1957), and Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524 (1952).
In Witkovich, we considered the scope of the Attorney General’s statutory authority to require deportable aliens to provide the INS with information about their “circumstances, habits, associations and activities, and other information . . . deemed fit and proper.” 8 CFR § 242.3(c)(3) (1956). Although the challenged regulation seemed clearly authorized by the words of the statute, the Court concluded that Congress had only intended to authorize “questions reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General advised regarding the continued availability for departure of aliens whose deportation is overdue.” 353 U. S., at 202. Relying on Witkovich, the Court of Appeals held that § 1252(a) should also be given a narrow construction.
This case differs from Witkovich in important ways. Writing for the Court, Justice Frankfurter explained the reasons for placing a limiting construction on the statutory language:
“The language of § 242(d)(3), if read in isolation and literally, appears to confer upon the Attorney General unbounded authority to require whatever information he deems desirable of aliens whose deportation has not been effected within six months after it has been commanded. The Government itself shrinks from standing on the breadth of these words. But once the tyranny of literalness is rejected, all relevant considerations for giving a rational content to the words become operative. A restrictive meaning for what appear to be plain words may be indicated by the Act as a whole, by the persuasive gloss of legislative history or by the rule of constitutional adjudication, relied on by the District Court, that such a restrictive meaning must be given if a broader meaning would generate constitutional doubts.” Id., at 199.
In this case, the Government’s argument proceeds on the assumption that the “Act as a whole” — including its concern with the employment of excludable aliens — should define the scope of the Attorney General’s discretion. It is respondents who would excise the interest in preventing unauthorized employment from the statutory scheme and confine the Attorney General’s bonding authority to the limited purpose of ensuring the presence of aliens at their deportation hearings. Moreover, the contested regulation, when properly construed as applicable only to unauthorized employment, does not raise “constitutional doubts” and therefore does not militate in favor of a narrow construction of the organic statute. In short, the Court of Appeals’ reliance on Witkovich was misplaced.
The majority below also relied on Carlson. In that case, the Court upheld the Attorney General’s detention (under § 23 of the Internal Security Act of 1950) of deportable members of the Communist Party on the ground that they posed a threat to national security. The Court of Appeals read that case narrowly, as standing for the proposition that the Attorney General may exercise his discretion under § 1252(a) to protect the Nation from active subversion.
This reading of Carlson is too cramped. What was significant in Carlson was not simply the threat of “active subversion,” but rather the fact that Congress had enacted legislation based on its judgment that such subversion posed a threat to the Nation. The Attorney General’s discretion sanctioned in Carlson was wholly consistent with Congress’ intent: “Detention [was] part of [the Internal Security Act]. Otherwise aliens arrested for deportation would have opportunities to hurt the United States during the pendency of deportation proceedings.” 342 U. S., at 538. Thus, the statutory policy that justified the detention was the congressional determination that the presence of alien Communists constituted an unacceptable threat to the Nation.
In this case, the stated and actual purpose of no-work bond conditions was “‘to protect against the displacement of workers in the United States.’” 48 Fed. Reg. 51142 (1983) (citation omitted). We have often recognized that a “primary purpose in restricting immigration is to preserve jobs for American workers.” Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883, 893 (1984); see also 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(14) (defining as a class of excludable aliens those “seeking to enter the United States, for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor” without the appropriate authorization). The contested regulation is wholly consistent with this established concern of immigration law and thus squarely within the scope of the Attorney General’s statutory authority.
V
As a related ground supporting invalidation of the regulation, the Court of Appeals ruled that the regulation did not provide for “individualized decisions” as required by the Act. We agree that the lawful exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion to impose a no-work condition under § 1252(a) requires some level of individualized determination. Indeed in the absence of such judgments, the legitimate exercise of discretion is impossible in this context. We reached a similar conclusion with respect to the determination at issue in Carlson, noting that the findings of “evidence of membership plus personal activity in supporting and extending the [Communist] Party’s philosophy concerning violence g[ave] adequate ground for detention.” 342 U. S., at 541.
However, we believe that the no-work condition regulation, when properly construed and when viewed in the context of the complex regime of immigration law, provides the individualized determinations contemplated in the statute. As noted above, we accept the Attorney General’s interpretation of the regulation as affecting only those aliens who may not lawfully accept employment in this country. In addition, the operating instructions issued to INS personnel in connection with this regulation expressly state that individuals maintaining a colorable claim of citizenship shall not be subject to the no-work condition, see n. 5, supra, and the INS has stated that “[a]liens who have applied for asylum will not be affected by these regulations.” 48 Fed. Reg. 51143 (1983). These facts substantially narrow the reach of the regulation.
Moreover, the Solicitor General has advised us that, in enforcing the regulation, the INS will make “an initial, informal determination [as to] whether the alien holds some status that makes work ‘authorized.’ ” Brief for Petitioners 35. The alien’s burden in that proceeding is easily met, for aliens who are authorized to work generally possess documents establishing that status. Some persons so authorized carry so-called “green cards,” see Saxbe v. Bustos, 419 U. S. 65, 66-68 (1974), others carry employment authorization documents, see 8 CFR § 274a.l2(a) (1991), or registration numbers that will readily identify their status.
This informal process is enhanced by two additional provisions. First, 8 CFR § 103.6(a)(2)(iii) (1991) establishes a procedure under which individual aliens can seek discretionary relief from the INS and secure temporary work authorization. Second, an alien may seek prompt administrative and judicial review of bond conditions. 8 CFR §§3.18, 242.2 (1991).
Taken together all of these administrative procedures are designed to ensure that aliens detained and bonds issued under the contested regulation will receive the individualized determinations mandated by the Act in this context.
For these reasons, we conclude that 8 CFR § 103.6(a)(2)(ii) (1991) is consistent with the Attorney General’s statutory authority under § 242(a) of the INA. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The regulation further provides:
"(iii) Factors to be considered. Only those aliens who upon application under § 109.1(b) of this chapter establish compelling reasons for granting employment authorization may be authorized to accept employment. Among the factors which may be considered when an application is made, are the following:
"(A) Safeguarding employment opportunities for United States citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens;
"(B) Prior immigration violations by the alien;
"(C) Whether there is a reasonable basis for considering discretionary relief; and
"(D) Whether a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or children are dependent upon the alien for support, or other equities exist." § 103.6(a)(2)(iii).
In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Government’s 1986 petition for certiorari framed the question presented as:
“Whether 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a), which allows the Attorney General, pending determination of deportability of an alien, to release the alien under bond 'containing such conditions as the Attorney General may prescribe,’ permits a condition that forbids the alien to engage in unauthorized, employment pending determination of deportability.” Pet. for Cert, in INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, O. T. 1986, No. 86-1207, p. I (emphasis supplied).
This supports the Government’s current representation that it has consistently taken the position that the regulation was never intended to interfere with an alien’s right to engage in authorized employment.
The critical sentence in the regulation states that the condition shall be included “unless the District Director determines that employment is appropriate.” 8 CFR § 103.6(a)(2)(h) (1991). This language places the burden on the alien of demonstrating that employment is appropriate, but it seems inconceivable that the District Director could determine that employment that had already been authorized was not “appropriate.”
In response to critical comments on the proposed rule during the rule-making process, the agency categorically stated that “permanent resident aliens are not affected by these release conditions. Until such time as permanent resident status is lost, the permanent resident alien has the right to work in the United States, if released on bond. The Service, therefore, has no intention of applying this condition to a permanent resident alien in exclusion or deportation proceedings.” 48 Fed. Reg. 51143 (1983).
“Individuals maintaining a colorable claim to U. S. Citizenship and permanent resident aliens, authorized to work in the United States under 8 CFR 109.1(a)(1), shall not be subject to this general prohibition until such time as a final administrative determination of deportability .has been made.” INS Operating Instruction 103.6(i) (Dec. 7,1983).
The individual plaintiffs alleged that enforcement of the no-work condition would make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to employ counsel and to obtain their release pending a determination of their deportability. None of them, however, alleged-that he or she had been authorized to work in the United States before commencement of his or her deportation proceeding. See App. 34-41. (Although one plaintiff alleged that he had been employed for about six years, he did not allege that he had been authorized to accept work. See id., at 36.)
Title 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a) provides in pertinent part—
“Apprehension and deportation of aliens
“(a) Arrest and custody; review of determination by court; aliens committing aggravated felonies; report to Congressional committees
“(1) Pending a determination of deportability in the case of any alien as provided in subsection (b) of this section, such alien may, upon warrant of the Attorney General, be arrested and taken into custody. Except as provided in paragraph (2) [regarding mandatory detention of aliens convicted of aggravated felonies], any süch alien taken into custody may, in the discretion of the Attorney General and pending such final determination of deportability, (A) be continued in custody; or (B) be released under bond in the amount of not less than $500 with security approved by the Attorney General, containing such conditions as the Attorney General may prescribe; or (C) be released on conditional parole. But such bond or parole, whether heretofore or hereafter authorized, may be revoked at any time by the Attorney General, in his discretion, and the alien may be returned to custody under the warrant which initiated the proceedings against him and detained until final determination of his deportability. Any court of competent jurisdiction shall have authority to review or revise any determination of the Attorney General concerning detention, release on bond, or parole pending final decision of deportability upon a conclusive showing in habeas corpus proceedings that the Attorney General is not proceeding with such reasonable dispatch as may be warranted by the particular facts and circumstances in the case of any alien to determine deportability.”
For an early statement of this policy, see H. R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 50-51 (1952) (discussing the INA’s “safeguards for American labor”). This policy of immigration law was forcefully recognized most recently in the IRCA.
The Solicitor General also notes that “in those rare cases where an alien claims work authorization by status but is unable readily to document such status[,] a preliminary showing of likely success on the merits ... would be grounds for temporary relief.” Brief for Petitioners 36, n. 26 (citing 8 CFR §274a.l2(c)(13)(iii) (1991)).
This section sets forth the various classes of aliens authorized to accept employment; in each case the INS issues to the alien a document confirming that authorization. Importantly, the INS regulations implementing IRCA also provide for the issuance of such a document pending the resolution of amnesty proceedings. See 8 CFR § 246a.2(n) (1991).
We realize that the regulation effectively establishes a presumption that undocumented aliens taken into custody are not entitled to work. In view of the fact that over 97 percent of those aliens apparently do not contest their deportability and instead agree to voluntary deportation, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1044 (1984), such a presumption is reasonable. Moreover, even within the narrow subclass in which deport-ability is contested, there is no evidence that the presumption cannot be effectively rebutted by those aliens who are entitled to employment, or who have a colorable claim to the right to work. The fact that the rule may make it more difficult for aliens who are not entitled to work to resist deportation is, of course, not a reason for concluding that the regulation exceeds the Attorney General's statutory 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:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we are called upon once again to construe the elusive provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731. Somewhat ironically, the argument that we have no jurisdiction over this appeal is made by the appellant, the United States. The appellee, on the other hand, insists the case is properly here.
A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California indicted the appellee for refusing to submit to induction into the Armed Forces, a violation of 50 U. S. C. App. § 462 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. V). In the Selective Service proceedings leading up to his induction notice, the appellee sought conscientious objector status. He specifically requested that his lawyer be allowed to accompany him at the time of his personal appearance before his local board, but the board, relying on 32 CFR § 1624.1 (b), denied the request and conducted the personal appearance without the appel-lee’s counsel present. Subsequently, the board declined to reopen the appellee’s I-A classification, and the appel-lee unsuccessfully exhausted administrative review. His order to report for induction, his refusal to submit, and this prosecution followed.
The appellee moved before trial to dismiss his indictment on the ground, among others, that the denial of counsel at the time of his personal appearance before the board deprived him of due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. The District Court did not squarely decide this constitutional claim, but granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that the regulation prohibiting representation by counsel at a registrant’s personal appearance was not authorized by the Military Selective Service Act. 309 F. Supp. 50. The court relied primarily upon Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, in which our opinion underscored “the Court’s concern that traditional forms of fair procedure not be restricted by implication or without the most explicit action by the Nation’s lawmakers, even in areas where it is possible that the Constitution presents no inhibition.” 360 U. S., at 508. Viewing the personal appearance as “a critical stage of an administrative process at which substantial rights are adjudicated,” 309 F. Supp., at 51, the District Court found the various provisions of the Selective Service Act conferring rulemaking power on the Executive insufficient to authorize a regulation denying counsel at local board hearings.
The United States filed a notice of appeal to this Court. Subsequently, the Government reconsidered its position and concluded that this Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the Solicitor General filed a motion asking us to remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We postponed further consideration of the question of jurisdiction until the hearing of the case on the merits. 397 U. S. 985. We now conclude that this appeal is not properly here and, pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act, remand the case to the Court of Appeals.
The appellee urges that we have jurisdiction under either of two sections of the Act, one relating to dismissal of an indictment based on the construction of the statute on which the indictment is founded and the other to motions in bar. Considering first the “construction of the statute” provision, the controlling precedent is this Court’s decision in United States v. Mersky, 361 U. S. 431. In that case, as in this one, there were in issue both a statute and a regulation promulgated pursuant to it. In finding jurisdiction in Mersky, however, the Court noted that “neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other.. .. When the statute and regulations are so inextricably intertwined, the dismissal must be held to involve the construction of the statute.” 361 U. S., at 438.
The relation between the Selective Service Act and the regulation forbidding representation by counsel before local boards is wholly different from the situation in Mersky. The regulation is not at all “called for by the statute itself,” 361 U. S., at 438. Indeed, so independent are the statute and the regulation that it would be entirely possible for a regulation covering the same subject matter to provide exactly the reverse of what the present regulation requires. It cannot be said here that “the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other.” Since this statute and this regulation fall so far short of being “inextricably intertwined,” we conclude that the dismissal of the appellee’s indictment was not “based upon the . . . construction of the statute.”
We turn, accordingly, to the “motion in bar” provision of the Criminal Appeals Act. Two preliminary observations are necessary. First, a “motion in bar” must be taken to mean whatever was meant by a “special plea in bar” in the Act as originally passed in 1907. Second, this Court has never settled on a definitive interpretation of what constitutes a “motion in bar.”
During its debates on the Criminal Appeals Act in 1907, Congress paid relatively little attention to the “special plea in bar” section of the Act. The clearest statement of its meaning was given by one of the bill’s cosponsors, Senator Patterson:
“A special plea in bar is that which is set up as a special defense notwithstanding the defendant may be guilty of the offenses with which he is charged; it is for some outside matter; yet it may have been connected with the case.”
The tenor of this definition accords with traditional usage, for at common law the most usual special plea in bar took the form of confession and avoidance. 1 J. Chitty, Treatise on Pleading and Parties to Actions *551-552 (16th Am. ed. 1883). In criminal cases the most common special pleas in bar presented claims of double jeopardy or pardon, 2 J. Bishop, New Criminal Procedure § 742 (2d ed. 1913), and sometimes the statute of limitations, id., at § 799 (5).
A characteristic common to all these definitions is that a special plea in bar did not deny that a defendant had committed the acts alleged and that the acts were a crime. Rather, it claimed that nevertheless he could not be prosecuted for his crime because of some extraneous factor. A situation in which the defendant claims that his act was simply not a crime would be beyond the scope of this test.
Our decisions are consistent with this reading of the “motion in bar” provision. In early cases under the section, the most familiar plea in bar interposed the statute of limitations. E. g., United States v. Goldman, 277 U. S. 229, 236-237; United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U. S. 78, 83-84. In other cases defendants have claimed immunity because of prior self-incriminatory testimony or a statutory grant of immunity. United States v. Blue, 384 U. S. 251; United States v. Hoffman, 335 U. S. 77, 78; United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424. See also United States v. Ewell, 383 U. S. 116 (speedy trial); United States v. Hark, 320 U. S. 531 (governing regulation revoked after violation but before indictment); United States v. Thompson, 251 U. S. 407 (first grand jury refused to indict; charges submitted to second grand jury without court approval); United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278 (challenge to federal jurisdiction).
Testing the appellee’s motion to dismiss by this standard, we think it plain that it cannot qualify as a “motion in bar.” The appellee did not deny that he refused to submit to induction, but he claimed that his conduct was not a crime because of the prior denial of counsel. He has not confessed to a crime and claimed immunity from prosecution; he argues that he has committed no crime.
We conclude, therefore, that we have no jurisdiction over this appeal under either the “construction of the statute” or “motion in bar” provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings in that court.
It is so ordered.
The end of our problems with this Act is finally in sight. The Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970, § 14 (a), 84 Stat. 1890, amended the Criminal Appeals Act to read in pertinent part as follows:
“In a criminal case an appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information as to any one or more counts, except that no appeal shall lie where the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution.”
This Court’s appellate jurisdiction of Government appeals in federal criminal cases has thus been eliminated. Pending cases, however, are not affected, since subsection (b) of the amending section provides:
“The amendments made by this section shall not apply with respect to any criminal case begun in any district court before the effective date of this section.”
The Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970 took effect on January 2, 1971. The appellee in this case was indicted on January 15, 1969.
Military Selective Service Act of 1967, §12 (a), 50 U. S. C. App. §462 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. V), provides in pertinent part:
“[A]ny person . . . who . . . refuses . . . service in the armed forces ... or who in any manner shall knowingly fail or neglect or refuse to perform any duty required of him under or in the execution of this title . . . shall, upon conviction in any district court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment . . .
32 CFR § 1624.1 (b) (1970) provides in pertinent part:
“[N]o registrant may be represented before the local board by anyone acting as attorney or legal counsel.”
The District Court cited Military Selective Service Act § 10 (b) (3), 50 U. S. C. App. § 460 (b) (3) (1964 ed., Supp. V), and § 1 (c) of the Act, 50 U. S. C. App. §451 (c). See also Military Selective Service Act §§ 5 (a)(1), 10(b)(1), 50 U. S. C. App. §§455 (a)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. V), 460 (b)(1).
See 18 U. S. C. §3731:
“If an appeal shall be taken, pursuant to this section, to the Supreme Court of the United States which, in the opinion of that Court, should have been taken to a court of appeals, the Supreme Court shall remand the case to the court of appeals, which shall then have jurisdiction to hear and determine the same as if the appeal had been taken to that court in the first instance.”
Ibid.:
“An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the United States from the district courts direct to the Supreme Court of the United States in all criminal cases in the following instances:
“From a decision or judgment . . . dismissing any indictment . . . where such decision or judgment is based upon the . . . construction of the statute upon which the indictment ... is founded.
“From the decision or judgment sustaining a motion in bar, when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy.”
The dissenting opinions would have found jurisdiction wanting in Mersky. 361 U. S., at 444, 453,
It is suggested in dissent that we have jurisdiction because of the language in 50 U. S. C. App. § 460 (b) (3) (1964 ed., Supp. V) conferring upon local boards the power “to hear and determine” claims for exemption and deferment from military service. The record does not indicate that this statutory language was mentioned by the appellee in the District Court, and the court did not rely upon the “hear and determine” clause in dismissing the indictment. The theory of the dissent was not urged before this Court, perhaps because the parties realized that it can hardly be said that a dismissal of an indictment was “based upon” a construction of a statutory provision that the District Court never even considered.
United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267, 292-293, n. 22; Note 4 of Advisory Committee to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 54 (c), reprinted following Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 54, 18 U. S. C. App.
United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S., at 300 and nn. 53-54.
41 Cong. Rec. 2753.
Only two eases appear difficult to reconcile with the test adopted in text, and these are of dubious parentage. In United States v. Covington, 395 U. S. 57, and United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, defendants were being prosecuted for refusals to answer which they justified on grounds of Fifth Amendment privilege. Murdock itself, however, said that the plea was not appropriately presented as one in bar. 284 U. S., at 151. In Covington, we cited Murdock in assuming jurisdiction. 395 U. S., at 59 n. 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:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Endangered Species Act directs the Secretary of the Interior, upon listing a species as endangered, to also designate the "critical habitat" of the species. A group of landowners whose property was designated as critical habitat for an endangered frog challenged the designation. The landowners urge that their land cannot be critical habitat because it is not habitat, which they contend refers only to areas where the frog could currently survive. The court below ruled that the Act imposed no such limitation on the scope of critical habitat.
The Act also authorizes the Secretary to exclude an area that would otherwise be included as critical habitat, if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. The landowners challenged the decision of the Secretary not to exclude their property, but the court below held that the Secretary's action was not subject to judicial review.
We granted certiorari to review both rulings.
I
A
The amphibian Rana sevosa is popularly known as the "dusky gopher frog"-"dusky" because of its dark coloring and "gopher" because it lives underground. The dusky gopher frog is about three inches long, with a large head, plump body, and short legs. Warts dot its back, and dark spots cover its entire body. Final Rule To List the Mississippi Gopher Frog Distinct Population Segment of Dusky Gopher Frog as Endangered, 66 Fed.Reg. 62993 (2001) (Final Listing). It is noted for covering its eyes with its front legs when it feels threatened, peeking out periodically until danger passes. Markle Interests, LLC v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 827 F.3d 452, 458, n. 2 (C.A.5 2016). Less endearingly, it also secretes a bitter, milky substance to deter would-be diners. Brief for Intervenor-Respondents 6, n. 1.
The frog spends most of its time in burrows and stump holes located in upland longleaf pine forests. In such forests, frequent fires help maintain an open canopy, which in turn allows vegetation to grow on the forest floor. The vegetation supports the small insects that the frog eats and provides a place for the frog's eggs to attach when it breeds. The frog breeds in "ephemeral" ponds that are dry for part of the year. Such ponds are safe for tadpoles because predatory fish cannot live in them. Designation of Critical Habitat for Dusky Gopher Frog, 77 Fed.Reg. 35129-35131 (2012) (Designation).
The dusky gopher frog once lived throughout coastal Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, in the longleaf pine forests that used to cover the southeast. But more than 98% of those forests have been removed to make way for urban development, agriculture, and timber plantations. The timber plantations consist of fast-growing loblolly pines planted as close together as possible, resulting in a closed-canopy forest inhospitable to the frog. The near eradication of the frog's habitat sent the species into severe decline. By 2001, the known wild population of the dusky gopher frog had dwindled to a group of 100 at a single pond in southern Mississippi. That year, the Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the Endangered Species Act of 1973 on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, listed the dusky gopher frog as an endangered species. Final Listing 62993-62995; see 87 Stat. 886, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1).
B
When the Secretary lists a species as endangered, he must also designate the critical habitat of that species. § 1533(a)(3)(A)(i). The ESA defines "critical habitat" as:
"(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species ... on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and
"(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species ... upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species." § 1532(5)(A).
Before the Secretary may designate an area as critical habitat, the ESA requires him to "tak[e] into consideration the economic impact" and other relevant impacts of the designation. § 1533(b)(2). The statute goes on to authorize him to "exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of [designation]," unless exclusion would result in extinction of the species. Ibid.
A critical-habitat designation does not directly limit the rights of private landowners. It instead places conditions on the Federal Government's authority to effect any physical changes to the designated area, whether through activities of its own or by facilitating private development. Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to consult with the Secretary to "[e]nsure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency" is not likely to adversely affect a listed species' critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). If the Secretary determines that an agency action, such as issuing a permit, would harm critical habitat, then the agency must terminate the action, implement an alternative proposed by the Secretary, or seek an exemption from the Cabinet-level Endangered Species Committee. See National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 652, 127 S.Ct. 2518, 168 L.Ed.2d 467 (2007) ; 50 C.F.R. 402.15 (2017).
Due to resource constraints, the Service did not designate the frog's critical habitat in 2001, when it listed the frog as endangered. Designation, at 35118-35119. In the following years, the Service discovered two additional naturally occurring populations and established another population through translocation. The first population nonetheless remains the only stable one and by far the largest. Dept. of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Dusky Gopher Frog (Rana sevosa ) Recovery Plan iv, 6-7 (2015).
In 2010, in response to litigation by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Service published a proposed critical-habitat designation. Designation, at 35119. The Service proposed to designate as occupied critical habitat all four areas with existing dusky gopher frog populations. The Service found that each of those areas possessed the three features that the Service considered "essential to the conservation" of the frog and that required special protection: ephemeral ponds; upland open-canopy forest containing the holes and burrows in which the frog could live; and open-canopy forest connecting the two. But the Service also determined that designating only those four sites would not adequately ensure the frog's conservation. Because the existing dusky gopher frog populations were all located in two adjacent counties on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, local events such as extreme weather or an outbreak of an infectious disease could jeopardize the entire species. Designation of Critical Habitat for Mississippi Gopher Frog, 75 Fed.Reg. 31394 (2010) (proposed 50 C.F.R. Part 17).
To protect against that risk, the Service proposed to designate as unoccupied critical habitat a 1,544-acre site in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The site, dubbed "Unit 1" by the Service, had been home to the last known population of dusky gopher frogs outside of Mississippi. The frog had not been seen in Unit 1 since 1965, and a closed-canopy timber plantation occupied much of the site. But the Service found that the site retained five ephemeral ponds "of remarkable quality," and determined that an open-canopy forest could be restored on the surrounding uplands "with reasonable effort." Although the uplands in Unit 1 lacked the open-canopy forests (and, of course, the frogs) necessary for designation as occupied critical habitat, the Service concluded that the site met the statutory definition of unoccupied critical habitat because its rare, high-quality breeding ponds and its distance from existing frog populations made it essential for the conservation of the species. Designation, at 35118, 35124, 35133, 35135.
After issuing its proposal, the Service commissioned a report on the probable economic impact of designating each area, including Unit 1, as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2) ; App. 63. Petitioner Weyerhaeuser Company, a timber company, owns part of Unit 1 and leases the remainder from a group of family landowners. Brief for Petitioner 16. While the critical-habitat designation has no direct effect on the timber operations, St. Tammany Parish is a fast-growing part of the New Orleans metropolitan area, and the landowners have already invested in plans to more profitably develop the site. App. 80-83. The report recognized that anyone developing the area may need to obtain Clean Water Act permits from the Army Corps of Engineers before filling any wetlands on Unit 1. 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a). Because Unit 1 is designated as critical habitat, Section 7 of the ESA would require the Corps to consult with the Service before issuing any permits.
According to the report, that consultation process could result in one of three outcomes. First, it could turn out that the wetlands in Unit 1 are not subject to the Clean Water Act permitting requirements, in which case the landowners could proceed with their plans unimpeded. Second, the Service could ask the Corps not to issue permits to the landowners to fill some of the wetlands on the site, in effect prohibiting development on 60% of Unit 1. The report estimated that this would deprive the owners of $20.4 million in development value. Third, by asking the Corps to deny even more of the permit requests, the Service could bar all development of Unit 1, costing the owners $33.9 million. The Service concluded that those potential costs were not "disproportionate" to the conservation benefits of designation. "Consequently," the Service announced, it would not "exercis[e][its] discretion to exclude" Unit 1 from the dusky gopher frog's critical habitat. App. 188-190.
C
Weyerhaeuser and the family landowners sought to vacate the designation in Federal District Court. They contended that Unit 1 could not be critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog because the frog could not survive there: Survival would require replacing the closed-canopy timber plantation encircling the ponds with an open-canopy longleaf pine forest. The District Court nonetheless upheld the designation. Markle Interests, LLC v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv ., 40 F.Supp.3d 744 (E.D.La.2014). The court determined that Unit 1 satisfied the statutory definition of unoccupied critical habitat, which requires only that the Service deem the land "essential for the conservation [of] the species." Id., at 760.
Weyerhaeuser also challenged the Service's decision not to exclude Unit 1 from the dusky gopher frog's critical habitat, arguing that the Service had failed to adequately weigh the benefits of designating Unit 1 against the economic impact. In addition, Weyerhaeuser argued that the Service had used an unreasonable methodology for estimating economic impact and, regardless of methodology, had failed to consider several categories of costs. Id., at 759. The court approved the Service's methodology and declined to consider Weyerhaeuser's challenge to the decision not to exclude. See id ., at 763-767, and n. 29.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. 827 F.3d 452. The Court of Appeals rejected the suggestion that the definition of critical habitat contains any "habitability requirement." Id., at 468. The court also concluded that the Service's decision not to exclude Unit 1 was committed to agency discretion by law and was therefore unreviewable. Id., at 473-475. Judge Owen dissented. She wrote that Unit 1 could not be "essential for the conservation of the species" because it lacked the open-canopy forest that the Service itself had determined was "essential to the conservation" of the frog. Id., at 480-481.
The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc. Markle Interests, LLC v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv ., 848 F.3d 635 (2017). Judge Jones dissented, joined by Judges Jolly, Smith, Clement, Owen, and Elrod. They reasoned that critical habitat must first be habitat, and Unit 1 in its present state could not be habitat for the dusky gopher frog. Id., at 641. The dissenting judges also concluded that the Service's decision not to exclude Unit 1 was reviewable for abuse of discretion. Id., at 654, and n. 21.
We granted certiorari to consider two questions: (1) whether "critical habitat" under the ESA must also be habitat; and (2) whether a federal court may review an agency decision not to exclude a certain area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of such a designation. 583 U.S. ----, --- S.Ct. ----, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018).
II
A
Our analysis starts with the phrase "critical habitat." According to the ordinary understanding of how adjectives work, "critical habitat" must also be "habitat." Adjectives modify nouns-they pick out a subset of a category that possesses a certain quality. It follows that "critical habitat" is the subset of "habitat" that is "critical" to the conservation of an endangered species.
Of course, "[s]tatutory language cannot be construed in a vacuum," Sturgeon v. Frost, 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1061, 1070, 194 L.Ed.2d 108 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted), and so we must also consider "critical habitat" in its statutory context. Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i), which the lower courts did not analyze, is the sole source of authority for critical-habitat designations. That provision states that when the Secretary lists a species as endangered he must also "designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3)(A)(i) (emphasis added). Only the "habitat" of the endangered species is eligible for designation as critical habitat. Even if an area otherwise meets the statutory definition of unoccupied critical habitat because the Secretary finds the area essential for the conservation of the species, Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) does not authorize the Secretary to designate the area as critical habitat unless it is also habitat for the species.
The Center for Biological Diversity contends that the statutory definition of critical habitat is complete in itself and does not require any independent inquiry into the meaning of the term "habitat," which the statute leaves undefined. Brief for Intervenor-Respondents 43-49. But the statutory definition of "critical habitat" tells us what makes habitat "critical," not what makes it "habitat." Under the statutory definition, critical habitat comprises areas occupied by the species "on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection," as well as unoccupied areas that the Secretary determines to be "essential for the conservation of the species." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A). That is no baseline definition of habitat-it identifies only certain areas that are indispensable to the conservation of the endangered species. The definition allows the Secretary to identify the subset of habitat that is critical, but leaves the larger category of habitat undefined.
The Service does not now dispute that critical habitat must be habitat, see Brief for Federal Respondents 23, although it made no such concession below. Instead, the Service argues that habitat includes areas that, like Unit 1, would require some degree of modification to support a sustainable population of a given species. Id ., at 27. Weyerhaeuser, for its part, urges that habitat cannot include areas where the species could not currently survive. Brief for Petitioner 25. (Habitat can, of course, include areas where the species does not currently live, given that the statute defines critical habitat to include unoccupied areas.) The Service in turn disputes Weyerhaeuser's premise that the administrative record shows that the frog could not survive in Unit 1. Brief for Federal Respondents 22, n. 4.
The Court of Appeals concluded that "critical habitat" designations under the statute were not limited to areas that qualified as habitat. See 827 F.3d, at 468 ("There is no habitability requirement in the text of the ESA or the implementing regulations."). The court therefore had no occasion to interpret the term "habitat" in Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) or to assess the Service's administrative findings regarding Unit 1. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below and remand to the Court of Appeals to consider these questions in the first instance.
B
Weyerhaeuser also contends that, even if Unit 1 could be properly classified as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog, the Service should have excluded it from designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. That provision requires the Secretary to "tak[e] into consideration the economic impact ... of specifying any particular area as critical habitat" and authorizes him to "exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2). To satisfy its obligation to consider economic impact, the Service commissioned a report estimating the costs of its proposed critical-habitat designation. The Service concluded that the costs of designating the proposed areas, including Unit 1, were not "disproportionate" to the conservation benefits and, "[c]onsequently," declined to make any exclusions.
Weyerhaeuser claims that the Service's conclusion rested on a faulty assessment of the costs and benefits of designation and that the resulting decision not to exclude should be set aside. Specifically, Weyerhaeuser contends that the Service improperly weighed the costs of designating Unit 1 against the benefits of designating all proposed critical habitat, rather than the benefits of designating Unit 1 in particular. Weyerhaeuser also argues that the Service did not fully account for the economic impact of designating Unit 1 because it ignored, among other things, the costs of replacing timber trees with longleaf pines, maintaining an open canopy through controlled burning, and the tax revenue that St. Tammany Parish would lose if Unit 1 were never developed. Brief for Petitioner 53-54. The Court of Appeals did not consider Weyerhaeuser's claim because it concluded that a decision not to exclude a certain area from critical habitat is unreviewable.
The Administrative Procedure Act creates a "basic presumption of judicial review [for] one 'suffering legal wrong because of agency action.' " Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 702 ). As we explained recently, "legal lapses and violations occur, and especially so when they have no consequence. That is why this Court has so long applied a strong presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action." Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 575 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct. 1645, 1652-1653, 191 L.Ed.2d 607 (2015). The presumption may be rebutted only if the relevant statute precludes review, 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1), or if the action is "committed to agency discretion by law," § 701(a)(2). The Service contends, and the lower courts agreed, that Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA commits to the Secretary's discretion decisions not to exclude an area from critical habitat.
This Court has noted the "tension" between the prohibition of judicial review for actions "committed to agency discretion" and the command in § 706(2)(A) that courts set aside any agency action that is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 829, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985). A court could never determine that an agency abused its discretion if all matters committed to agency discretion were unreviewable. To give effect to § 706(2)(A) and to honor the presumption of review, we have read the exception in § 701(a)(2) quite narrowly, restricting it to "those rare circumstances where the relevant statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion." Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 191, 113 S.Ct. 2024, 124 L.Ed.2d 101 (1993). The Service contends that Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA is one of those rare statutory provisions.
There is, at the outset, reason to be skeptical of the Service's position. The few cases in which we have applied the § 701(a)(2) exception involved agency decisions that courts have traditionally regarded as unreviewable, such as the allocation of funds from a lump-sum appropriation, Lincoln, 508 U.S., at 191, 113 S.Ct. 2024 or a decision not to reconsider a final action, ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270, 282, 107 S.Ct. 2360, 96 L.Ed.2d 222 (1987). By contrast, this case involves the sort of routine dispute that federal courts regularly review: An agency issues an order affecting the rights of a private party, and the private party objects that the agency did not properly justify its determination under a standard set forth in the statute.
Section 4(b)(2) states that the Secretary
"shall designate critical habitat ... after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area ... unless he determines ... that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2).
Although the text meanders a bit, we recognized in Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997), that the provision describes a unified process for weighing the impact of designating an area as critical habitat. The first sentence of Section 4(b)(2) imposes a "categorical requirement" that the Secretary "tak[e] into consideration" economic and other impacts before such a designation. Id., at 172, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (emphasis deleted). The second sentence authorizes the Secretary to act on his consideration by providing that he may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. The Service followed that procedure here (albeit in a flawed manner, according to Weyerhaeuser). It commissioned a report to estimate the costs of designating the proposed critical habitat, concluded that those costs were not "disproportionate" to the benefits of designation, and "[c]onsequently" declined to "exercis[e] [its] discretion to exclude any areas from [the] designation of critical habitat." App. 190.
Bennett explained that the Secretary's "ultimate decision" to designate or exclude, which he "arriv[es] at" after considering economic and other impacts, is reviewable "for abuse of discretion." 520 U.S., at 172, 117 S.Ct. 1154. The Service dismisses that language as a "passing reference ... not necessarily inconsistent with the Service's understanding," which is that the Secretary's decision not to exclude an area is wholly discretionary and therefore unreviewable. Brief for Federal Respondents 50. The Service bases its understanding on the second sentence of Section 4(b)(2), which states that the Secretary "may exclude [an] area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of [designation]."
The use of the word "may" certainly confers discretion on the Secretary. That does not, however, segregate his discretionary decision not to exclude from the procedure mandated by Section 4(b)(2), which directs the Secretary to consider the economic and other impacts of designation when making his exclusion decisions. Weyerhaeuser's claim is the familiar one in administrative law that the agency did not appropriately consider all of the relevant factors that the statute sets forth to guide the agency in the exercise of its discretion. Specifically, Weyerhaeuser contends that the Service ignored some costs and conflated the benefits of designating Unit 1 with the benefits of designating all of the proposed critical habitat. This is the sort of claim that federal courts routinely assess when determining whether to set aside an agency decision as an abuse of discretion under § 706(2)(A). See Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 53, 132 S.Ct. 476, 181 L.Ed.2d 449 (2011) ("When reviewing an agency action, we must assess ... whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Section 4(b)(2) requires the Secretary to consider economic impact and relative benefits before deciding whether to exclude an area from critical habitat or to proceed with designation. The statute is, therefore, not "drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the [Secretary's] exercise of [his] discretion" not to exclude. Lincoln, 508 U.S., at 191, 113 S.Ct. 2024.
Because it determined that the Service's decisions not to exclude were committed to agency discretion and therefore unreviewable, the Court of Appeals did not consider whether the Service's assessment of the costs and benefits of designation was flawed in a way that rendered the resulting decision not to exclude Unit 1 arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we remand to the Court of Appeals to consider that question, if necessary, in the first instance.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice KAVANAUGH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Intervenor Center for Biological Diversity raises an additional question in its brief, arguing that Weyerhaeuser lacks standing to challenge the critical-habitat designation because it has not suffered an injury in fact. We agree with the lower courts that the decrease in the market value of Weyerhaeuser's land as a result of the designation is a sufficiently concrete injury for Article III purposes. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 386, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926) (holding that a zoning ordinance that "greatly ... reduce[d] the value of appellee's lands and destroy[ed] their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses" constituted a "present invasion of appellee's property rights").
Because we hold that an area is eligible for designation as critical habitat under Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) only if it is habitat for the species, it is not necessary to consider the landowners' argument that land cannot be "essential for the conservation of the species," and thus cannot satisfy the statutory definition of unoccupied critical habitat, if it is not habitat for the species. See Brief for Petitioner 27-28; Brief for Respondent Markle Interests, LLC, et al. in Support of Petitioner 28-31.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents questions concerning the scope of a century-old federal law that permits a defendant in state court proceedings to transfer his case to a federal trial court under certain conditions. That law, now 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1964 ed.), provides:
Ҥ 1443. Civil rights cases.
“Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
“(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;
“(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.”
The case arises from a removal petition filed by Thomas Rachel and 19 other defendants seeking to transfer to the United Spates District Court for the Northern District of Georgia criminal trespass prosecutions pending against them in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. The petition stated that the defendants had been arrested on various dates in the spring of 1963 when they sought to obtain service at privately owned restaurants open to the general public in Atlanta, Georgia. The defendants alleged:
“their arrests were effected for the sole purpose of aiding, abetting, and perpetuating customs, and usages which have deep historical and psychological roots in the mores and attitudes which exist within the City of Atlanta with respect to serving and seating members of the Negro race in such places of public accommodation and convenience upon a racially discriminatory basis and upon terms and conditions not imposed upon members of the so-called white or Caucasian race. Members of the so-called white or Caucasian race are similarly treated and discriminated against when accompanied by members of the Negro race.”
Each defendant, according to the petition, was then indicted under the Georgia statute making it a misdemeanor to refuse to leave the premises of another when requested to do so by the owner or the person in charge. On these allegations, the defendants maintained that removal was authorized under both subsections of 28 U. S. C. § 1443. The defendants maintained broadly that they were entitled to removal under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically invoking the language of subsection (1), the “denied or cannot enforce” clause, their petition stated:
“petitioners are denied and/or cannot enforce in the Courts of the State of Georgia rights under the Constitution and Laws of the United States providing for the equal rights of citizens of the United States... in that, among other things, the State of Georgia by statute, custom, usage, and practice supports and maintains a policy of racial discrimination.”
Invoking the language of subsection (2), the “color of authority” clause, the petition stated:
“petitioners are being prosecuted for acts done under color of authority derived from the constitution and laws of the United States and for refusing to do an act which was, and is, inconsistent with the Constitution and Laws of the United States.”
On its own motion and without a hearing, the Federal District Court remanded the cases to the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, finding that the petition did not allege facts sufficient to sustain removal under the federal statute. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
While the case was pending in that court, two events of critical significance took place. The first of these was the enactment into law by the United States Congress of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 241. The second was the decision of this Court in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306. That case held that the Act precludes state trespass prosecutions for peaceful attempts to be served upon an equal basis in establishments covered by the Act, even though the prosecutions were instituted prior to the Act’s passage. In view of these intervening developments in the law, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court. In terms of the language of § 1443 (1), the court held that, if the allegations in the petition were true, prosecution in the courts of Georgia under that State’s trespass statute, substantially similar to the state statutes involved in Hamm, denied the defendants a right under a law providing for equal civil rights — the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was therefore returned to the District Court, with directions that the defendants be given an opportunity to prove that their prosecutions had resulted from orders to leave places of public accommodation “for racial reasons.” Upon such proof, the court held that Hamm would then require the District Court to order dismissal of the prosecutions. 342 F. 2d 336, 343.
We granted certiorari to consider the applicability of the removal statute to the circumstances of this case. 382 U. S. 808. No issues touching the constitutional power of Congress are involved. We deal only with questions of statutory construction.
The present statute is a direct descendant of a provision enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. 14 Stat. 27. The subsection that is now § 1443 (1) was before this Court in a series of decisions beginning with Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, and Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, in 1880 and ending with Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U. S. 1, in 1906. The Court has not considered the removal statute since then, one reason being that an order remanding a case sought to be removed under § 1443 was not appealable after the year 1887. In § 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, Congress specifically provided for appeals from remand orders in § 1443 cases, so as to give the federal reviewing courts a new opportunity to consider the meaning and scope of the removal statute. 78 Stat. 266, 28 U. S. C. § 1447 (d) (1964 ed.). The courts of appeals in four circuits have now had occasion to give extensive consideration to various aspects of the removal statute. In the case before us, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dealt only with issues arising under the first subsection of § 1443, and we confine our review to those issues.
Section 1443 (1) entitles the defendants to remove these prosecutions to the federal court only if they meet both requirements of that subsection. They must show both that the right upon which they rely is a “right under any law providing for... equal civil rights,” and that they are “denied or cannot enforce” that right in the courts of Georgia.
The statutory phrase “any law providing for... equal civil rights” did not appear in the original removal provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That provision allowed removal only in cases involving the express statutory rights of racial equality guaranteed in the Act itself. The first section of the 1866 Act secured for all citizens the “same” rights as were “enjoyed by white citizens” in a variety of fundamental areas. Section 3, the removal section of the 1866 Act, provided for removal by “persons who are denied or cannot enforce... the rights secured to them by the first section of this act....”
The present language “any law providing for... equal civil rights” first appeared in § 641 of the Revised Statutes of 1874. When the Revised Statutes were compiled, the substantive and removal provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were carried forward in separate sections. Hence, Congress could no longer identify the rights for which removal was available by using the language of the original Civil Rights Act— “rights secured to them by the first section of this act.” The new language it chose, however, does not suggest that it intended to limit the scope of removal to rights recognized in statutes existing in 1874. On the contrary, Congress’ choice of the open-ended phrase “any law providing for... equal civil rights” was clearly appropriate to permit removal in cases involving “a right under” both existing and future statutes that provided for equal civil rights.
There is no substantial indication, however, that the general language of § 641 of the Revised Statutes was intended to expand the kinds of “law” to which the removal section referred. In spite of the potential breadth of the phrase “any law providing for... equal civil rights,” it seems clear that in enacting § 641, Congress intended in that phrase only to include laws comparable in nature to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Prior to the 1874 revision, Congress had not significantly enlarged the opportunity for removal available to private persons beyond the relatively narrow category of rights specified in the 1866 Act, even though the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments had been adopted and Congress had broadly implemented them in other major, civil rights legislation. Moreover, § 641 contained an explicit cross-reference at the end of the section to § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, which carried forward the principal rights created in § 1 of the 1866 Act. In addition, the note in the margin of § 641 pointed specifically to the removal provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and to §§ 16 and 18 of the Civil Rights Act of 1870. The latter sections were concerned solely with the re-enactment, in somewhat expanded form, of the 1866 Act. Finally, the limitation of § 641 to laws comparable to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 comports with the relatively narrow mandate of the revising commissioners “to revise, simplify, arrange, and consolidate all statutes of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, which shall be in force at the time such commissioners may make the final report of their doings.” Act of June 27, 1866, c. 140, 14 Stat. 74. We conclude, therefore, that the model for the phrase “any law providing for... equal civil rights” in § 641 was the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The legislative history of the 1866 Act clearly indicates that Congress intended to protect a limited category of rights, specifically defined in terms of racial equality. As originally proposed in the Senate, § 1 of the bill that became the 1866 Act did not contain the phrase “as is enjoyed by white citizens.” That phrase was later added in committee in the House, apparently to emphasize the racial character of the rights being protected. More important, the Senate bill did contain a general provision forbidding “discrimination in civil rights or immunities,” preceding the specific enumeration of rights to be included in § l. Objections were raised in the legislative debates to the breadth of the rights of racial equality that might be encompassed by a prohibition so general as one against “discrimination in civil rights or immunities!” There was sharp controversy in the Senate, but the bill passed. After similar controversy in the House, however, an amendment was accepted striking the phrase from the bill.
On the basis of the historical material that is available, we conclude that the phrase “any law providing for... equal civil rights” must be construed to mean any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. Thus, the defendants’ broad contentions under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment cannot support a valid claim for removal under § 1443, because the guarantees of those clauses are phrased in terms of general application available to all persons or citizens, rather than in the specific language of racial equality that § 1443 demands. As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has concluded, § 1443 “applies only to rights that are granted in terms of equality and not to the whole gamut of constitutional rights....” “When the removal statute speaks of ‘any law providing for equal rights,’ it refers to those laws that are couched in terms of equality, such as the historic and the recent equal rights statutes, as distinguished from laws, of which the due process clause and 42 U. S. C. § 1983 are sufficient examples, that confer equal rights in the sense, vital to our way of life, of bestowing them upon all.” New York v. Galamison, 342 F. 2d 255, 269, 271. See also Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565, 585-586; Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U. S. 1, 39-40; City of Greenwood v. Peacock, post, p. 825.
But the defendants in the present case did not rely solely on these broad constitutional claims in their removal petition. They also made allegations calling into play the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That Act is clearly a law conferring a specific right of racial equality, for in § 201 (a) it guarantees to all the “full and equal enjoyment” of the facilities of any place of public accommodation without discrimination on the ground of race. By that language the Act plainly qualifies as a “law providing for... equal civil rights” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1).
Moreover, it is clear that the right relied upon as the basis for removal is a “right under” a law providing for equal civil rights. The removal petition may fairly be read to allege that the defendants will be brought to trial solely as the result of peaceful attempts to obtain service at places of public accommodation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 endows the defendants with a right not to be prosecuted for such conduct. As noted, § 201 (a) guarantees to the defendants the equal access they sought. Section 203 then provides that, “No person shall... (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.” (Emphasis supplied.) 78 Stat. 244. In Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306, 311, the Court held that this section of the Act “prohibits prosecution of any person for seeking service in a covered establishment, because of his race or color.” Hence, if the facts alleged in the petition are true, the defendants not only are immune from conviction under the Georgia trespass statute, but they have a “right under” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not even to be brought to trial on these charges in the Georgia courts.
The question remaining, then, is whether within the meaning of § 1443 (1), the defendants are “denied or cannot enforce” that right “in the courts of” Georgia. That question can be answered only after consideration of the legislative and judicial history of this requirement.
When Congress adopted the first civil rights removal provisions in § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it incorporated by reference the procedures for removal established in § 5 of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863, 12 Stat. 756. The latter section, in turn, permitted removal either at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings in the state court or after final judgment in that court. There can be no doubt that post-judgment removal was a practical remedy for civil rights defendants invoking either the “denied or cannot enforce” clause or the “color of authority” clause of the 1866 removal provision, in order to vindicate rights that had actually been denied at the trial. The scope of pre-trial removal, however, was unclear.
Congress eliminated post-judgment removal when it enacted § 641 of the Revised Statutes of 1874. The compilation of the Revised Statutes coincided with the end of the Reconstruction period. During Reconstruction itself, removal under § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had been but one measure established by Congress for the enforcement of the numerous statutory rights created under the Civil War Amendments. In other enactments, Congress had taken relatively more drastic steps to enforce those rights. But by the end of the Reconstruction period, many of these measures had expired, and by eliminating post-judgment removal, Congress had substantially truncated the original civil rights removal provision. Pre-trial removal was retained, but the scope of the provision had never been clarified. It was in this historic setting that the Court examined the scope of § 641. In a series of cases commencing with Strauder v. West Virginia, supra, and Virginia v. Rives, supra, decided on the same day in the 1879 Term, the Court established a relatively narrow, well-defined area in which pre-trial removal could be sustained under the “denied or cannot enforce” clause of that section.
In Strauder, the removal petition of a Negro indicted for murder pointed to a West Virigina statute that permitted only white male persons to serve on a grand or petit jury. Since Negroes were excluded from jury service pursuant to that statute, the defendant claimed that the “probabilities” were great that he would suffer a denial of his right to the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings in the State of West Virginia....” 100 U. S., at 304. The state court denied removal, however, and the defendant was convicted. This Court held that pre-trial removal should have been granted because, in the language of § 641, it appeared even before trial that the defendant would be denied or could not enforce a right secured to him by a “law providing for... equal civil rights.” The law specifically invoked by the Court was § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, now 42 U. S. C. § 1981. That law, the Court held, conferred upon the defendant the right to have his jurors selected without discrimination on the ground of race. Because of the direct conflict between the West Virginia statute and § 1977, the Court in Strauder held that the defendant would be the victim of “a denial by the statute law of the State.” 100 U. S., at 312.
In Virginia v. Rives, however, the defendants could point to no such state statute as the basis for removal. Their petition alleged that strong community racial prejudice existed against them, that the grand and petit jurors summoned to try them were all white, that Negroes had never been allowed to serve on county juries in cases in which a Negro was involved in any way, and that the judge, the prosecutor, and the assistant prosecutor had all rejected their request that Negroes be included in the petit jury. Hence, the defendants maintained, they could not obtain a fair trial in the state court. But the only relevant Virginia statute to which the petition referred imposed jury duty on all males within a certain age range. Thus, the law of Virginia did not, on its face, sanction the discrimination of which the defendants complained. This Court held that the petition stated no ground for removal. Critical to its holding was the Court’s observation that § 641 of the Revised Statutes authorized only pre-trial removal. The Court concluded:
“the denial or inability to enforce in the judicial tribunals of a State, rights secured to a defendant by any law providing for... equal civil rights... of which sect. 641 speaks, is primarily, if not exclusively, a denial of such rights, or an inability to enforce them, resulting from the Constitution or laws of the State, rather than a denial first made manifest at the trial of the case. In other words, the statute has reference to a legislative denial or an inability resulting from it. Many such cases of denial might have been apprehended, and some existed. Colored men might have been, as they had been, denied a trial by jury. They might have been excluded by law from any jury summoned to try persons of their race, or the law might have denied to them the testimony of colored men in their favor, or process for summoning witnesses.... In all such cases a defendant can affirm, on oath, before trial, that he is denied the equal protection of the laws or equality of civil rights. But in the absence of constitutional or legislative impediments he cannot swear before his case comes to trial that his enjoyment of all his civil rights is denied to him. When he has only an apprehension that such rights will be withheld from him when his case shall come to trial, he cannot affirm that they are actually denied, or that he cannot enforce them. Yet such an affirmation is essential to his right to remove his case. By the express requirement of the statute his petition must set forth the facts upon which he bases his claim to have his case removed, and not merely his belief that he cannot enforce his rights at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. The statute was not, therefore, intended as a corrective of errors or wrongs committed by judicial tribunals in the administration of the law at the trial.” 100 U. S., at 319-320.
The Court acknowledged that even though Virginia’s statute did not authorize discrimination in jury selection, the officer in charge of the selection might nevertheless bring it about.
“But when a subordinate officer of the State, in violation of State law, undertakes to deprive an accused party of a right which the statute law accords to him, as in the case at bar, it can hardly be said that he is denied, or cannot enforce, ‘in the judicial tribunals of the State’ the rights which belong to him. In such a case it ought to be presumed the court will redress the wrong.” 100 U. S., at 321-322.
The Court distinguished the situation in Strauder:
“It is to be observed that [§ 641] gives the right of removal only to a person ‘who is denied, or cannot enforce, in the judicial tribunals of the State his equal civil rights.’ And this is to appear before trial. When a statute of the State denies his right, or interposes a bar to his enforcing it, in the judicial tribunals, the presumption is fair that they will be controlled by it in their decisions; and in such a case a defendant may affirm on oath what is necessary for a removal. Such a case is clearly within the provisions of sect. 641.” 100 U. S., at 321. (Emphasis in original.)
Strauder and Rives thus teach that removal is not warranted by an assertion that a denial of rights of equality may take place and go uncorrected at trial. Removal is warranted only if it can be predicted by reference to a law of general application that the defendant will be denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in the state courts. A state statute authorizing the denial affords an ample basis for such a prediction.
The doctrine announced in Strauder and Rives was amplified in Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, and Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S. 110. In both cases, the Court reversed convictions on the ground that jury selection had been conducted pursuant to a policy of racial discrimination. Yet in both cases the Court also held that a pre-trial removal petition alleging such discrimination stated no ground for removal. In Neal the petition relied upon a Delaware constitutional provision, adopted prior to the advent of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, that purportedly sanctioned discriminatory jury selection. But the Delaware court in which the petition had been filed held that the subsequent Amendments rendered the state provision void. Hence, unlike Strauder, the Neal case involved no law of the State upon which to found a suitable prediction that rights of equality would be denied in the courts of the State. In Bush, the petition relied upon a Kentucky jury exclusion statute drawn along racial lines that had been enacted after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. But prior to Bush’s trial, the Kentucky Court of Appeals had held, in another case, that the statute was unconstitutional. This Court noted that the judicial declaration was binding upon all inferior Kentucky courts and concluded that, “After that decision, so long as it was unmodified, it could not have been properly said in advance of a trial that the defendant in a criminal prosecution was denied or could not enforce in the judicial tribunals of Kentucky the rights secured to him by any law providing for... equal civil rights....” 107 U. S., at 116. In both Neal and Bush, then, the Court held that in the absence of a presently effective state law authorizing the predicted denial, the state court was the proper forum for the resolution of the claims that rights of equality would be denied, even though, as the Court also held, the state courts had ultimately failed to correct the denials that in fact took place at the defendants’ trials in those two cases.
Four subsequent decisions, also involving claims of racial discrimination in jury selection, reiterated the principles announced in Strauder and Rives, and amplified in Neal and Bush. The final removal case decided by this Court was Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U. S. 1. In that case, which involved alleged discrimination on a political basis, the defendant was about to undergo his fourth trial, having been successful on appeal after three prior verdicts of guilty. He could therefore enhance his prediction that rights would be denied by pointing to instances of illegality in the three prior proceedings against him. But the petition for removal resembled those in the cases that followed Strauder in that it pointed to no state enactment that authorized the predicted denial. Accordingly, restating the Strauder-Rives doctrine, this Court held that no case for removal had been made out.
In the line of cases from Strauder to Powers, the Court interpreted § 641 of the Revised Statutes of 1874. That statute has come down to us, in modified form, as § 1443. But in its first subsection, the present removal statute still requires that a petitioner be one who “is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of” a State the rights he seeks to vindicate by removing the case to federal court. There is no suggestion that the modifications in the statute since 1874 were intended to effect any change in substance. Hence, for the purposes of the present case, we are dealing with the same statute that confronted the Court in the cases interpreting § 641
The Stmuder-Rives doctrine, as consistently applied in all these cases, required a removal petition to allege, not merely that rights of equality would be denied or could not be enforced, but that the denial would take place in the courts of the State. The doctrine also required that the denial be manifest in a formal expression of state law. This requirement served two ends. It ensured that removal would be available only in cases where the predicted denial appeared with relative clarity prior to trial. It also ensured that the task of prediction would not involve a detailed analysis by a federal judge of the likely disposition of particular federal claims by particular state courts. That task not only would have been difficult, but it also would have involved federal judges in the unseemly process of prejudging their brethren of the state courts. Thus, the Court in Strauder and Rives concluded that a state enactment, discriminatory on its face, so clearly authorized discrimination that it could be taken as a suitable indication that all courts in that State would disregard the federal right of equality with which the state enactment was precisely in conflict.
In Rives itself, however, the Court noted that the denial of which the removal provision speaks “is primarily, if not exclusively, a denial... resulting from the Constitution or laws of the State....” 100 U. S., at 319. (Emphasis supplied.) This statement was reaffirmed in Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565, 581. The Court thereby gave some indication that removal might be justified, even in the absence of a discriminatory state enactment, if an equivalent basis could be shown for an equally firm prediction that the defendant would be “denied or cannot enforce” the specified federal rights in the state court. Such a basis for prediction exists in the present case.
In the narrow circumstances of this case, any proceedings in the courts of the State will constitute a denial of the rights conferred by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as construed in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, if the allegations of the removal petition are true. The removal petition alleges, in effect, that the defendants refused to leave facilities of public accommodation, when ordered to do so solely for racial reasons, and that they are charged under a Georgia trespass statute that makes it a criminal offense to refuse to obey such an order. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, as Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306, made clear, protects those who refuse to obey such an order not only from conviction in state courts, but from prosecution in those courts. Hamm emphasized the precise terms of § 203 (c) that prohibit any “attempt to punish” persons for exercising rights of equality conferred upon them by the Act. The explicit terms of that section compelled the conclusion that “nonforcible attempts to gain admittance to or remain in establishments covered by the Act, are immunized from prosecution....” 379 U. S., at 311. The 1964 Act therefore “substitutes a right for a crime.” 379 U. S., at 314. Hence, if as alleged in the present removal petition, the defendants were asked to leave solely for racial reasons, then the mere pendency of the prosecutions enables the federal court to make the clear prediction that the defendants will be “denied or cannot enforce in the courts of [the] State” the right to be free of any “attempt to punish” them for protected activity. It is no answer in these circumstances that the defendants might eventually prevail in the state court. The burden of having to defend the prosecutions is itself the denial of a right explicitly conferred by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as construed in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, supra.
Since the Federal District Court remanded the present case without a hearing, the defendants as yet have had no opportunity to establish that they were ordered to leave the restaurant facilities solely for racial reasons. If the Federal District Court finds that allegation true, the defendants’ right to removal under § 1443 (1) will be clear. The Strauder-Rives doctrine requires no more, for the denial in the. courts of the State then clearly appears without any detailed analysis of the likely behavior of any particular state court. Upon such a finding it will be apparent that the conduct of the defendants is “immunized from prosecution” in any court, and the Federal District Court must then sustain the removal and dismiss the prosecutions.
For these reasons, the judgment is
Affirmed.
[For Appendix to opinion of the Court, see facing page.]
The statute under which the defendants were charged, Ga. Code Ann. §26-3005 (1965 Cum. Supp.), provides:
“Refusal to leave premises of another when ordered to do so by owner or person in charge. It shall be unlawful for any person, who is on the premises of another, to refuse and fail to leave said premises when requested to do so by the owner or any person in charge of said premises or the agent or employee of such owner or such person in charge. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.”
We reject the State’s contention that the appeal was untimely. The notice of appeal was filed 16 days after the order of remand. Although Rule 37 (a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that an appeal be taken within 10 days after entry of the order appealed from, that rule does not govern an appeal taken prior to verdict, finding of guilty or not guilty by the court, or plea of guilty. This Court promulgated Rules 32-39 under authority of the Act of February 24, 1933, which authorized only rules governing proceedings in criminal cases after verdict, finding of guilty or not guilty by the court, or plea of guilty. 47 Stat. 904, as amended, 18 U. S. C. § 3772 (1964 ed.). See 327 U. S. 825. In 1940, Congress authorized the Court to prescribe rules for criminal proceedings prior to verdict, finding of guilty or not guilty by the court, or plea of guilty. 54 Stat. 688, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §3771 (1964 ed.). But this authorization required that the rules be submitted to Congress before they could take effect. Only Rules 1-31 and 40-60 were so submitted. 327 U. S. 824.
“The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, requires this result where ‘there is a clear collision’ between state and federal law... ” Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306, 311.
For a remarkably original and comprehensive discussion of the issues presented in this case and in City of Greenwood v. Peacock, post, p. 808, see Amsterdam, Criminal Prosecutions Affecting Federally Guaranteed Civil Rights: Federal Removal and Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction to Abort State Court Trial, 113 U. Pa. L. Rev. 793 (1965).
The intervening cases were: Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370; Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S. 110; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565; Smith v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 592; Murray v. Louisiana, 163 U. S. 101; Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S. 213. See also Dubuclet v. Louisiana, 103 U. S. 550; Schmidt v. Cobb, 119 U. S. 286.
Prior to 1875, a remand order was regarded as a nonfinal order reviewable by mandamus, but not by appeal. Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507. In 1875, Congress provided for review “by the Supreme Court on writ of error or appeal, as the case may be.” 18 Stat. 472. Twelve years later, however, Congress closed off the appellate avenue in the following language: “and no appeal or writ of error from the decision of the circuit court so remanding such cause shall be allowed.” 24 Stat. 553. Compare Gay v. Ruff, 292 U. S. 25, 28-31. In the ease of In re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451, this Court held that the 1887 statute was also intended to bar review by mandamus. Until its amendment in 1964, the modem version of the statutory bar, 28 U. S. C. § 1447 (d) (1964 ed.), prohibited review of a remand order “on appeal or otherwise” in cases removed pursuant to any statute.
Section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established an exception to the nonreviewability rule of 28 U. S. C. § 1447 (d) for cases removed pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1443, by making remand orders in these cases “reviewable by appeal or otherwise.” 28 U. S. C. §1447 (d) (1964 ed.). We have no doubt that Congress thereby intended to open the way for immediate appeal. See the remarks of: Representative Kastenmeier, 110 Cong. Rec. 2770; Senator Humphrey, 110 Cong. Rec. 6551; Senator Kuchel, 110 Cong. Rec. 6564; Senator Dodd, 110 Cong. Rec. 6955-6956.
Mr. Kastenmeier had originally introduced a bill amending § 1443 itself, which he described as making it “easier to remove a case from a State court to a U. S. district court, whenever it appears that strict impartiality is not possible in the State court.” 109 Cong. Rec. 13126, 13128. In later defending the final bill which simply made remand orders appealable in § 1443 cases, he said on the House floor: “Mr. Chairman, what we have done is
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider whether attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment constitutes "the obtaining of property from another" under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2).
I
New York's Common Retirement Fund is an employee pension fund for the State of New York and its local governments.
As sole trustee of the Fund, the State Comptroller chooses Fund investments. When the Comptroller decides to approve an investment he issues a "Commitment." A Commitment, however, does not actually bind the Fund. For that to happen, the Fund and the recipient of the investment must enter into a limited partnership agreement. 683 F.3d 436, 438 (C.A.2 2012).
Petitioner Giridhar Sekhar was a managing partner of FA Technology Ventures. In October 2009, the Comptroller's office was considering whether to invest in a fund managed by that firm. The office's general counsel made a written recommendation to the Comptroller not to invest in the fund, after learning that the Office of the New York Attorney General was investigating another fund managed by the firm. The Comptroller decided not to issue a Commitment and notified a partner of FA Technology Ventures. That partner had previously heard rumors that the general counsel was having an extramarital affair.
The general counsel then received a series of anonymous e-mails demanding that he recommend moving forward with the investment and threatening, if he did not, to disclose information about his alleged affair to his wife, government officials, and the media. App. 59-61. The general counsel contacted law enforcement, which traced some of the e-mails to petitioner's home computer and other e-mails to offices of FA Technology Ventures.
Petitioner was indicted for, and a jury convicted him of, attempted extortion, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). That Act subjects a person to criminal liability if he "in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do." § 1951(a). The Act defines "extortion" to mean "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right."
§ 1951(b)(2). On the verdict form, the jury was asked to specify the property that petitioner attempted to extort: (1) "the Commitment"; (2) "the Comptroller's approval of the Commitment"; or (3) "the General Counsel's recommendation to approve the Commitment." App. 141-142. The jury chose only the third option.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. The court held that the general counsel "had a property right in rendering sound legal advice to the Comptroller and, specifically, to recommend-free from threats-whether the Comptroller should issue a Commitment for [the funds]." 683 F.3d, at 441. The court concluded that petitioner not only attempted to deprive the general counsel of his "property right," but that petitioner also "attempted to exercise that right by forcing the General Counsel to make a recommendation determined by [petitioner]." Id., at 442.
We granted certiorari. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 928, 184 L.Ed.2d 719 (2013).
II
A
Whether viewed from the standpoint of the common law, the text and genesis of the statute at issue here, or the jurisprudence of this Court's prior cases, what was charged in this case was not extortion.
It is a settled principle of interpretation that, absent other indication, "Congress intends to incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law terms it uses." Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 23, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999).
"[W]here Congress borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed." Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952).
Or as Justice Frankfurter colorfully put it, "if a word is obviously transplanted from another legal source, whether the common law or other legislation, it brings the old soil with it." Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L.Rev. 527, 537 (1947).
The Hobbs Act punishes "extortion," one of the oldest crimes in our legal tradition, see E. Coke, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England 148-150 (1648) (reprint 2008). The crime originally applied only to extortionate action by public officials, but was later extended by statute to private extortion. See 4 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law §§ 695, 699 (14th ed. 1981). As far as is known, no case predating the Hobbs Act-English, federal, or state-ever identified conduct such as that charged here as extortionate. Extortion required the obtaining of items of value, typically cash, from the victim. See, e.g., People v. Whaley, 6 Cow. 661 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1827) (justice of the peace properly indicted for extorting money); Commonwealth v. Bagley, 24 Mass. 279 (1828) (officer properly convicted for demanding a fee for letting a man out of prison); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 66 Ky. 25 (1867) (jailer properly indicted for extorting money from prisoner); Queen v. Woodward, 11 Mod. 137, 88 Eng. Rep. 949 (K.B. 1707) (upholding indictment for extorting "money and a note"). It did not cover mere coercion to act, or to refrain from acting. See, e.g., King v. Burdett, 1 Ld. Raym. 149, 91 Eng. Rep. 996 (K.B. 1696) (dictum) (extortion consisted of the "taking of money for the use of the stalls," not the deprivation of "free liberty to sell [one's] wares in the market according to law"). The text of the statute at issue confirms that the alleged property here cannot be extorted. Enacted in 1946, the Hobbs Act defines its crime of "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b) (2) (emphasis added). Obtaining property requires "not only the deprivation but also the acquisition of property." Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 404, 123 S.Ct. 1057, 154 L.Ed.2d 991 (2003) (citing United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 400, 93 S.Ct. 1007, 35 L.Ed.2d 379 (1973) ). That is, it requires that the victim "part with" his property, R. Perkins & R. Boyce, Criminal Law 451 (3d ed. 1982), and that the extortionist "gain possession" of it, Scheidler, supra, at 403, n. 8, 123 S.Ct. 1057; see also Webster's New International Dictionary 1682 (2d ed. 1949) (defining "obtain"); Murray, Note, Protesters, Extortion, and Coercion: Preventing RICO from Chilling First Amendment Freedoms, 75 Notre Dame L.Rev. 691, 706 (1999) (Murray). The property extorted must therefore be transferable -that is, capable of passing from one person to another. The alleged property here lacks that defining feature.
The genesis of the Hobbs Act reinforces that conclusion. The Act was modeled after § 850 of the New York Penal Law (1909), which was derived from the famous Field Code, a 19th-century model penal code, see 4 Commissioners of the Code, Penal Code of the State of New York § 613, p. 220 (1865) (reprint 1998). Congress borrowed, nearly verbatim, the New York statute's definition of extortion. See Scheidler, 537 U.S., at 403, 123 S.Ct. 1057. The New York statute contained, in addition to the felony crime of extortion, a new (that is to say, nonexistent at common law) misdemeanor crime of coercion. Whereas the former required, as we have said, " 'the criminal acquisition of ... property,' " ibid., the latter required merely the use of threats "to compel another person to do or to abstain from doing an act which such other such person has a legal right to do or to abstain from doing." N.Y. Penal Law § 530 (1909), earlier codified in N.Y. Penal Code § 653 (1881). Congress did not copy the coercion provision. The omission must have been deliberate, since it was perfectly clear that extortion did not include coercion. At the time of the borrowing (1946), New York courts had consistently held that the sort of interference with rights that occurred here was coercion. See, e.g., People v. Ginsberg, 262 N.Y. 556, 188 N.E. 62 (1933) (per curiam ) (compelling store owner to become a member of a trade association and to remove advertisements); People v. Scotti, 266 N.Y. 480, 195 N.E. 162 (1934) (compelling victim to enter into agreement with union); People v. Kaplan, 240 App.Div. 72, 74-75, 269 N.Y.S. 161, 163-164, aff'd, 264 N.Y. 675, 191 N.E. 621 (1934) (compelling union members to drop lawsuits against union leadership). And finally, this Court's own precedent similarly demands reversal of petitioner's convictions. In Scheidler, we held that protesters did not commit extortion under the Hobbs Act, even though they "interfered with, disrupted, and in some instances completely deprived" abortion clinics of their ability to run their business. 537 U.S., at 404-405, 123 S.Ct. 1057. We reasoned that the protesters may have deprived the clinics of an "alleged property right," but they did not pursue or receive " 'something of value from' " the clinics that they could then "exercise, transfer, or sell" themselves. Id., at 405, 123 S.Ct. 1057. The opinion supported its holding by citing the three New York coercion cases discussed above. See id., at 405-406, 123 S.Ct. 1057.
This case is easier than Scheidler, where one might at least have said that physical occupation of property amounted to obtaining that property. The deprivation alleged here is far more abstract. Scheidler rested its decision, as we do, on the term "obtaining." Id., at 402, n. 6, 123 S.Ct. 1057. The principle announced there-that a defendant must pursue something of value from the victim that can be exercised, transferred, or sold-applies with equal force here.
Whether one considers the personal right at issue to be "property" in a broad sense or not, it certainly was not obtainable property under the Hobbs Act.
B
The Government's shifting and imprecise characterization of the alleged property at issue betrays the weakness of its case. According to the jury's verdict form, the "property" that petitioner attempted to extort was "the General Counsel's recommendation to approve the Commitment." App. 142. But the Government expends minuscule effort in defending that theory of conviction. And for good reason-to wit, our decision in Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 121 S.Ct. 365, 148 L.Ed.2d 221 (2000), which reversed a business owner's mail-fraud conviction for "obtaining money or property" through misrepresentations made in an application for a video-poker license issued by the State. We held that a "license" is not "property" while in the State's hands and so cannot be "obtained" from the State. Id., at 20-22, 121 S.Ct. 365. Even less so can an employee's yet-to-be-issued recommendation be called obtainable property, and less so still a yet-to-be-issued recommendation that would merely approve (but not effect) a particular investment.
Hence the Government's reliance on an alternative, more sophisticated (and sophistic) description of the property. Instead of defending the jury's description, the Government hinges its case on the general counsel's "intangible property right to give his disinterested legal opinion to his client free of improper outside interference." Brief for United States 39. But what, exactly, would the petitioner have obtained for himself? A right to give his own disinterested legal opinion to his own client free of improper interference? Or perhaps, a right to give the general counsel's disinterested legal opinion to the general counsel's client?
Either formulation sounds absurd, because it is. Clearly, petitioner's goal was not to acquire the general counsel's "intangible property right to give disinterested legal advice." It was to force the general counsel to offer advice that accorded with petitioner's wishes. But again, that is coercion, not extortion. See Murray 721-722. No fluent speaker of English would say that "petitioner obtained and exercised the general counsel's right to make a recommendation," any more than he would say that a person "obtained and exercised another's right to free speech." He would say that "petitioner forced the general counsel to make a particular recommendation," just as he would say that a person "forced another to make a statement." Adopting the Government's theory here would not only make nonsense of words; it would collapse the longstanding distinction between extortion and coercion and ignore Congress's choice to penalize one but not the other. See Scheidler, supra, at 409, 123 S.Ct. 1057. That we cannot do.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice ALITO, with whom Justice KENNEDY and Justice SOTOMAYOR join, concurring in the judgment.
The question that we must decide in this case is whether "the General Counsel's recommendation to approve the Commitment," App. 142-or his right to make that recommendation-is property that is capable of being extorted under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. In my view, they are not. I
The jury in this case returned a special verdict form and stated that the property that petitioner attempted to extort was "the General Counsel's recommendation to approve the Commitment." What the jury obviously meant by this was the general counsel's internal suggestion to his superior that the state government issue a nonbinding commitment to invest in a fund managed by FA Technology Ventures. We must therefore decide whether this nonbinding internal recommendation by a salaried state employee constitutes "property" within the meaning of the Hobbs Act, which defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." § 1951(b)(2).
The Hobbs Act does not define the term "property," but even at common law the offense of extortion was understood to include the obtaining of any thing of value. 2 E. Coke, The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England 368b (18th English ed. 1823) ("Extortion ... is a great misprison, by wresting or unlawfully taking by any officer, by colour of his office, any money or valuable thing of or from any man"); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *141 (extortion is "an abuse of public, justice which consists in any officer's unlawfully taking, by colour of his office, from any man, any money or thing of value"). See also 2 J. Bishop, Criminal Law § 401, pp. 331-332 (9th ed. 1923) ("In most cases, the thing obtained is money.... But probably anything of value will suffice"); 3 F. Wharton, A Treatise on Criminal Law § 1898, p. 2095 (11th ed. 1912) ("[I]t is enough if any valuable thing is received").
At the time Congress enacted the Hobbs Act, the contemporary edition of Black's Law Dictionary included an expansive definition of the term. See Black's Law Dictionary 1446 (3d ed. 1933). It stated that "[t]he term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest.... The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate."Id., at 1446-1447. And the lower courts have long given the term a similarly expansive construction. See, e.g., United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1075 (C.A.2 1969) ("The concept of property under the Hobbs Act ... includes, in a broad sense, any valuable right considered as a source or element of wealth").
Despite the breadth of some of these formulations, however, the term "property" plainly does not reach everything that a person may hold dear; nor does it extend to everything that might in some indirect way portend the possibility of future economic gain. I do not suggest that the current lower court case law is necessarily correct, but it seems clear that the case now before us is an outlier and that the jury's verdict stretches the concept of property beyond the breaking point.
It is not customary to refer to an internal recommendation to make a government decision as a form of property. It would seem strange to say that the government or its employees have a property interest in their internal recommendations regarding such things as the issuance of a building permit, the content of an environmental impact statement, the approval of a new drug, or the indictment of an individual or a corporation. And it would be even stranger to say that a private party who might be affected by the government's decision can obtain a property interest in a recommendation to make the decision. See, e.g., Doyle v. University of Alabama, 680 F.2d 1323, 1326 (C.A.11 1982) ("Doyle had no protected property interest in the mere recommendation for a raise; thus she was not entitled to due process safeguards when the recommended raise was disapproved by the University").
Our decision in Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 121 S.Ct. 365, 148 L.Ed.2d 221 (2000), supports the conclusion that internal recommendations regarding government decisions are not property. In Cleveland, we vacated a business owner's conviction under the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, for "obtaining money or property" through misrepresentations made in an application for a video poker license issued by the State. We held that a video poker license is not property in the hands of the State. Cleveland, supra, at 15, 121 S.Ct. 365. I do not suggest that the concepts of property under the mail fraud statute and the Hobbs Act are necessarily the same. But surely a video poker license has a stronger claim to be classified as property than a mere internal recommendation that a state government take an initial step that might lead eventually to an investment that would be beneficial to private parties.
The Government has not cited any Hobbs Act case holding that an internal recommendation regarding a government decision constitutes property. Nor has the Government cited any other example of the use of the term "property" in this sense.
The Second Circuit recharacterized the property that petitioner attempted to obtain as the general counsel's "right to make a recommendation consistent with his legal judgment." 683 F.3d 436, 442 (2012). And the Government also presses that theory in this Court. Brief for United States 15, 34-45. According to the Government, the general counsel's property interest in his recommendation encompasses the right to make the recommendation. Id., at 35-36. But this argument assumes that the recommendation itself is property. See id., at 35 (the general counsel's " 'recommendation ' and his 'right to make the recommendation' are merely different expressions of the same property"). If an internal recommendation regarding a government decision does not constitute property, then surely a government employee's right to make such a recommendation is not property either (nor could it be deemed a property right).
II
The Government argues that the recommendation was the general counsel's personal property because it was inextricably related to his right to pursue his profession as an attorney. See id., at 34-35. But that argument is clearly wrong: If the general counsel had left the State's employ before submitting the recommendation, he could not have taken the recommendation with him, and he certainly could not have given it or sold it to someone else. Therefore, it is obvious that the recommendation (and the right to make it) were inextricably related to the general counsel's position with the government, and not to his broader personal right to pursue the practice of law.
The general counsel's job surely had economic value to him, as did his labor as a lawyer, his law license, and his reputation as an attorney. But the indictment did not allege, and the jury did not find, that petitioner attempted to obtain those things. Nor would such a theory make sense in the context of this case. Petitioner did not, for example, seek the general counsel's legal advice or demand that the general counsel represent him in a legal proceeding. Cf. United States v. Thompson, 647 F.3d 180, 186-187 (C.A.5 2011) (a person's labor is property capable of being extorted). Nor did petitioner attempt to enhance his own ability to compete with the general counsel for legal work by threatening to do something that would, say, tarnish the general counsel's reputation or cause his law license to be revoked. Cf. Tropiano, 418 F.2d, at 1071-1072, 1075-1077 (threats to competitor in order to obtain customers constitute extortion); United States v. Zemek, 634 F.2d 1159, 1173-1174 (C.A.9 1980) (same); United States v. Coffey, 361 F.Supp.2d 102, 108-109 (E.D.N.Y.2005) (the right to pursue a lawful business is extortable property under the Hobbs Act).
The Court holds that petitioner's conduct does not amount to attempted extortion, but for a different reason: According to the Court, the alleged property that petitioner pursued was not transferrable and therefore is not capable of being "obtained." Ante, at 2724 - 2725, 2726 - 2727. Because I do not believe that the item in question constitutes property, it is unnecessary for me to determine whether or not petitioner sought to obtain it.
* * *
If Congress had wanted to classify internal recommendations pertaining to government decisions as property, I think it would have spoken more clearly than it did in the Hobbs Act. But even if the Hobbs Act were ambiguous on this point, the rule of lenity would counsel in favor of an interpretation of the statute that does not reach so broadly, see Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 409, 123 S.Ct. 1057, 154 L.Ed.2d 991 (2003). This is not to say that the Government could not have prosecuted petitioner for extortion on these same facts under some other theory. The question before us is whether the general counsel's recommendation-or the right to make it-constitutes property under the Hobbs Act. In my view, they do not.
For these reasons, I concur in the Court's judgment.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
Petitioner was also convicted of several counts of interstate transmission of extortionate threats, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(d). Under § 875(d), a person is criminally liable if he, "with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee." In this case, both parties concede that the definition of "extortion" under the Hobbs Act also applies to the § 875(d) counts. We express no opinion on the validity of that concession.
It may well be proper under the Hobbs Act for the Government to charge a person who obtains money by threatening a third party, who obtains funds belonging to a corporate or governmental entity by threatening the entity's agent, see 2 J. Bishop, Criminal Law § 408, p. 334, and n. 3 (9th ed. 1923) (citing State v. Moore, 1 Ind. 548 (1849) ), or who obtains "goodwill and customer revenues" by threatening a market competitor, see, e.g., United States v. Zemek, 634 F.2d 1159, 1173 (C.A.9 1980). Each of these might be considered "obtaining property from another." We need not consider those situations, however, because the Government did not charge any of them here.
Also revealing, the New York code prohibited conspiracy "[t]o prevent another from exercising a lawful trade or calling, or doing any other lawful act, by force, threats, intimidation." N.Y. Penal Law § 580(5) (1909) (emphasis added). That separate codification, which Congress did not adopt, is further evidence that the New York crime of extortion (and hence the federal crime) did not reach interference with a person's right to ply a lawful trade, similar to the right claimed here.
Seeking to extract something from the void, the Government relies on cases that interpret a provision of the New York code defining the kinds of threats that qualify as threats to do "unlawful injury to the person or property," which is what the extortion statute requires. See N.Y. Penal Code § 553 (1881); N.Y. Penal Law § 851 (1909). Those cases held that they include threats to injure a business by preventing the return of workers from a strike, People v. Barondess, 133 N.Y. 649, 31 N.E. 240, 241-242 (1892) (per curiam ), and threats to terminate a person's employment, People ex rel. Short v. Warden, 145 App.Div. 861, 130 N.Y.S. 698, 700-701 (1911), aff'd, 206 N.Y. 632, 99 N.E. 1116 (1912) (per curiam ). Those cases are entirely inapposite here, where the issue is not what constitutes a qualifying threat but what constitutes obtainable property.
The Government's attempt to distinguish Scheidler is unconvincing. In its view, had the protesters sought to force the clinics to provide services other than abortion, extortion would have been a proper charge. Petitioner committed extortion here, the Government says, because he did not merely attempt to prevent the general counsel from giving a recommendation but tried instead to force him to issue one. That distinction is, not to put too fine a point on it, nonsensical. It is coercion, not extortion, when a person is forced to do something and when he is forced to do nothing. See, e.g., N.Y. Penal Law § 530 (1909) (it is a misdemeanor to coerce a "person to do or to abstain from doing an act"). Congress's enactment of the Hobbs Act did not, through the phrase "obtaining of property from another," suddenly transform every act that coerces affirmative conduct into a crime punishable for up to 20 years, while leaving those who "merely" coerce inaction immune from federal punishment.
The concurrence contends that the "right to make [a] recommendation" is not property. Post, at 2729 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment). We are not sure of that. If one defines property to include anything of value, surely some rights to make recommendations would qualify-for example, a member of the Pulitzer Prize Committee's right to recommend the recipient of the prize. I suppose that a prominent journalist would not give up that right (he cannot, of course, transfer it) for a significant sum of money-so it must be valuable. But the point relevant to the present case is that it cannot be transferred, so it cannot be the object of extortion under the statute.
To recognize that an internal recommendation regarding a government decision is not property does not foreclose the possibility that threatening a government employee, as the government's agent, in order to secure government property could qualify as Hobbs Act extortion. Here, after all, petitioner's ultimate goal was to secure an investment of money from the government. But the jury found only that petitioner had attempted to obtain the general counsel's recommendation, so I have no occasion to consider whether a Hobbs Act conviction could have been sustained on a different legal theory.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the Federal Power Commission, when granting an application for a temporary certificate authorizing the sale of natural gas in interstate commerce, can impose a condition that the applicant shall not increase its certificated price pending a hearing on the applicant’s petition for permanent authority. Each of the seven applications involved here requested temporary operating authority to sell natural gas in interstate commerce on emergency grounds, as provided by §§ 7 (c) and (e) of the Natural Gas Act. In each case the Federal Power Commission conditioned the temporary grant of authority upon, inter alia, the producer’s maintaining the initial price, without increase, during the period of the temporary authorization. On appeal, the Court of Appeals set aside this condition, holding that it was beyond the power of the Commission and conflicted with the right of a producer to initiate a higher contract rate under § 4 of the Act. 306 F. 2d 334. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the question to the enforcement of the Natural Gas Act. 375 U. S. 810. We conclude that the Commission can impose such a condition in granting temporary authorizations under § 7 and therefore reverse the judgments.
I.
While this case involves applications for seven different temporary authorizations, the essential facts as to each, save the dates and gas fields, are the same. Since the parties and the Court of Appeals have treated the sale by the Hassie Hunt Trust as typical, we shall do likewise.
The Hunts are producers of natural gas in the Alta Loma area in Galveston County in Texas Railroad District No. 3. In July 1960, the Commission issued a permanent certificate authorizing sales of natural gas from the Alta Loma and other areas to the Peoples Gulf Coast Natural Gas Pipeline Co. 24 F. P. C. 1. The authorization was conditioned upon the producer's filing an amended contract providing for an initial price of 200 per Mcf., with an escalation of 30 after 10 years. The original contract had allowed four 20 escalations at four-year intervals. The order was found defective, however, because the Public Service Commission of New York, which sought a lower initial price, had been refused intervention before the Commission. See Public Service Comm’n v. Federal Power Comm’n, 111 U. S. App. D. C. 153, 295 F. 2d 140, cert. denied, sub nom. Shell Oil Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 368 U. S. 948. Thereafter the Commission vacated its issuance of the certificate and ordered a new hearing on the question of initial price. 26 F. P. C. 689.
In the meantime, after the issuance, but prior to the vacating, of the July 1960 certificate, the Commission issued General Policy No. 61-1,18 CFR § 2.56, 24 F. P. C. 818, which fixed the guideline for initial prices for Texas Railroad District No. 3 at 18¢ per Mcf., 2¢ below the initial price allowed in the July 1960 certificate.
Thereafter, on February 27, 1961, the Hassie Hunt Trust applied for a permanent certificate of public convenience and necessity allowing sales from a new well in this same area to Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, the successor to Peoples Gulf Coast. It also applied for temporary authorization to begin service immediately under the emergency provisions of the Commission’s Regulations issued under § 7 (c) of the Act. 18 CFR § 157.28. The emergency was alleged to result from the “necessity of paying shut-in royalties and the incurrence of drainage through sales by others to pipeline companies other than Natural.” The new sale was covered by a 20-year contract, dated December 15, 1960, with provisions identical to those of the earlier contract, i. e., an initial price of 200 per Mcf. with 20 escalations at four-year intervals. The Commission on April 7, 1961, granted the temporary authorization subject to three conditions: (1) that the total initial price not exceed 180 per Mcf. and thus be in keeping with the guideline rate set for Texas Railroad District No. 3, (2) that within 20 days supplements to the contracts be filed consistent with this price, and (3) that the temporary authorization be accepted in writing within 20 days. Deliveries were commenced by the producer on April 19 before these conditions were met. On May 5 a conditional acceptance was filed reserving the right to seek removal of the conditions imposed and tendering an amended contract providing for an 180 initial price for 30 days with 200 per Mcf. thereafter. The Commission rejected this conditional acceptance and subsequently, in order to make clear its position, specifically provided that the initial rate was to be 180 and that there was to be no change therein pending the hearing on permanent authorization. The proposed 200 rate was rejected and thereafter this review followed.
The Court of Appeals sustained the 180 initial price but held that the Commission had no power to condition temporary authorizations so as to preclude the filing and collection of increased rates pursuant to § 4 of the Act.
II.
Once again we are confronted with a question solely of the proper interpretation of the Natural Gas Act. This time we must determine the interplay of §§ 4 and 7. These sections are the avenues through which the natural gas producer may, by contract or otherwise, initially propose the dedication of his natural gas supply to interstate movement (§7) and, once so dedicated by order of the Federal Power Commission, thereafter initiate changes in existing rates (§4). We will proceed with separate analyses of these two sections.
Section 7 (c) came into the Natural Gas Act in 1942 and provides the method by which gas may be dedicated and certificated into interstate commerce. It prohibits a natural gas producer from engaging in the transportation or sale of natural gas “unless there is in force with respect to such natural-gas company a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission authorizing such acts or operations.” In order to secure such certificates, applications are filed with the Commission and in due course the applicants are afforded a hearing. Sections 7 (c) and (e) of the Act command that a certificate shall be issued if the Commission finds it “required by the present or future public convenience and necessity” and if the applicant meets certain tests of reliability, such as ability and willingness to perform. In issuing such certificates, the Commission has “the power to attach to the issuance of the certificate and to the exercise of the rights granted thereunder such reasonable terms and conditions as the public convenience and necessity may require.” §7(e).
Hearings under § 7 (e) for permanent certification are time consuming. The Congress, realizing this, provided in § 7 (c) that “the Commission may issue a temporary certificate in cases of emergency, to assure maintenance of adequate service or to serve particular customers, without notice or hearing, pending the determination of an application for a certificate, and may by regulation exempt from the requirements of this section temporary acts or operations for which the issuance of a certificate will not be required in the public interest.” Pursuant to this authorization the Commission adopted a regulation which sets out standards for emergency authorizations and requires the applicant to file “a statement of intention to invoke this section.” 18 CFR § 157.28 (c). The Commission grants the temporary certificate, where it deems necessary,' without notice or hearing. Under the terms of the regulation, this authorization continues until final Commission action under §§ 4 and 7, “without prejudice to such rate or other condition as may be attached to the issuance of the certificate.” 18 CFR § 157.28.
It must be noted, however, that § 7 does not stipulate that the Commission must find the initial rate to be just and reasonable but simply that the service proposed is required by the present and future public convenience and necessity. Nor does § 7 grant the Commission power to suspend the rate authorized in permanent or temporary certificates issued under that section. Once a permanent certificate is granted the Commission can correct an improper rate only under § 5 of the Act, 52 Stat. 823, 15 U. S. C. § 717d, which likewise has no suspension provision. In the light of this'inability to suspend the initial rate granted under a § 7 certificate, the Commission attaches conditions to the certificate of authority which it deems necessary to afford consumers the “complete, permanent and effective bond of protection from excessive rates and charges” for which we found the Act was framed in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 360 U. S. 378, 388 (1959). “The heart of the Act,” we said there, was in those provisions of § 7 (e) “requiring initially that any ‘proposed service, sale, operation, construction, extension, or acquisition . . . will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity’ . . . and that all rates and charges ‘made, demanded, or received’ shall be ‘just and reasonable,’ § 4, 15 U. S. C. § 717c.” In this case, the Commission concluded that when granting temporary certificates it must look even more carefully to the present and future public convenience and necessity and interpose such conditions precedent as would, in its view, fully protect consumers from excessive rates and charges.
Section 4 was included in the original Act of 1938. 52 Stat. 822,15 U. S. C. § 717c. It provides in part that “no change shall be made by any natural-gas company in any . . . rate . . . except after thirty days’ notice to the Commission and to the public.” §4(d). Whenever such new rate is filed, the Commission may, after notice, hold hearings to determine whether the rate is lawful and may suspend its operation, but only for a period of five months. §4(e). If the proceeding is not concluded within those five months, the proposed rate becomes effective and collectible, subject to subsequent refund by the natural gas company to the extent the rate is not just and reasonable. As we said in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., 350 U. S. 332, 341 (1956), the power granted to the Commission “is simply the power to review rates and contracts made in the first instance by natural gas companies and, if they are determined to be unlawful, to remedy them.” And we specifically pointed out that all § 4 (e) does “is to add to this basic power, in the case of a newly changed rate . . . the further powers (1) to preserve the status quo pending review of the new rate by suspending its operation for a limited period, and (2) thereafter to make its order retroactive, by means of the refund procedure, to the date the change became effective.” Ibid. The power granted to the Commission in § 4 does not come into play until after the initial certification of the natural gas into interstate commerce has been granted under § 7.
In the instant case no permanent certificates authorizing sales in interstate commerce have yet been issued. Temporary certificates have been allowed and each is conditioned upon the maintenance of the initial price. Thus, if respondents’ position is correct, then the conditions precedent to the issuance of the temporary certificates required by the Commission can be nullified by subsequent independent action of the respondents in filing a new contract under § 4. We do not believe that the Congress intended any such incongruous result.
III.
We find no conflict in the directives of the two sections. Indeed, they supplement one another and thereby work together in efficient conjunction to carry out the purposes of the Act. When the independent producer knocks on the door of the Commission for permission to enter his gas in interstate commerce he must submit to the requirements of § 7. His natural gas must be certificated before it can move into interstate commerce. If he wishes to avoid the delay incident to a hearing for a permanent certificate he may apply for temporary authorization, which may be granted upon ex parte application. In view of this, the Commission must have the authority to condition a temporary certificate so as to avoid irreparable injury to affected parties. This condition, once imposed, continues only during the pendency of the producer’s application for a permanent certificate. In view of the ex parte nature of the proceeding, it appears only fair to all concerned that the condition upon which the rate was temporarily certified be continued unchanged until the permanent certificate is issued.
Under the procedures of the Act, it is at the point of permanent or unconditional temporary certification that the provisions of § 4 become applicable. The gas has been permanently certificated into interstate commerce and the independent producer is then free to pursue the rate-filing procedure of that section.
This Court previously discussed the use of the temporary certificate procedure in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, supra. There we indicated that the Commission might avail itself of its power to condition the initial certification of natural gas into interstate commerce in order to prevent a triggering of general price rises. The language is unmistakably clear as to the claim made here that the vitality of § 4 of the Act is being impaired and we therefore repeat and reaffirm it:
“This is not an encroachment upon the initial rate-making privileges allowed natural gas companies under the Act, United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., supra, but merely the exercise of that duty imposed on the Commission to protect the public interest in determining whether the issuance of the certificate is required by the public convenience and necessity, which is the Act’s standard in § 7 applications. In granting such conditional certificates, the Commission does not determine initial prices nor does it overturn those agreed upon by the parties. Rather, it so conditions the certificate that the consuming public may be protected while the justness and reasonableness of the price fixed by the parties is being determined under other sections of the Act. Section 7 procedures in such situations thus act to hold the line awaiting adjudication of a just and reasonable rate.” At 391-392.
Nor is it any answer to say that the suspension power under § 4 (e) will afford protection to the public. The experience since our opinion in Atlantic Refining Co., supra, indicates that a triggering of price rises often results from the out-of-line initial pricing of certificated gas. These effects become irreversible and splash over into intrastate sales, thus generating reciprocal pressures that directly affect jurisdictional rates. As we said in Federal Power Comm’n v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Co., 371 U. S. 145, 154, 155 (1962), the possibility of refund does not afford sufficient protection:
“True, the exaction would have been subject to refund, but experience has shown this to be somewhat illusory .... It is, therefore, the duty of the Commission to look at The backdrop of the practical consequences [resulting] . . . and the purposes of the Act,’ Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 364 U. S. 137, 147 (1960), in exercising its discretion under § 16 to issue interim orders . . . .”
IV.
Our interpretation of the power of the Commission under §§ 7 (c) and (e) is buttressed by the legislative history. They were added to the Act in 1942, four years after its original passage. Prior to their adoption the only rate-making regulatory tools the Commission possessed were §§ 4 and 5, and they came into operation only after the natural gas was already moving in interstate commerce. Sections 7 (c) and (e) were designed to control the certification of gas destined for interstate movement. The purpose of the amendments was to give “the Commission an opportunity to scrutinize the financial set-up, the adequacy of the gas reserves, the feasibility and adequacy of the proposed services, and the characteristics of the rate structure ... at a time when such vital matters can readily be modified as the public interest may demand. . . .” House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, H. R. Rep. No. 1290, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-3. Its- counterpart in the Senate likewise reported:
“Provisions of the Natural Gas Act empower the Commission to prevent uneconomic extensions and waste, but it can so regulate such powers only when the extension is to ‘a market in which natural gas is already being served by another natural-gas -company.’ Thus the possibilities of waste, uneconomic and uncontrolled extensions are multiple and tremendous. The present bill would correct this glaring inadequacy of the act. It would also authorize the Commission to examine costs, finances, necessity, feasibility, and adequacy of proposed services. The characteristics of their rate structure could be studied.” Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, S. Rep. No. 948, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1-2.
Clearly, the Commission was given the power to lay down conditions precedent to the entry of the natural gas into interstate commerce. Moreover, the Commission has long recognized this obligation and has required modification of many tariff and contract provisions as a condition to the granting of a certificate.
The existence of broad discretionary power in the Commission to condition temporary certificates appears to us to be vital to its ability to hold the line in pricing. The extent of that power in permanent certification is not before us now, since each of these applications is for temporary certification. It is said that the condition of the Commission’s docket transposes, for all practical matters, temporary certificates into permanent ones. This claim arises due to the delays incident to the issuance of a permanent certificate. We spoke of the “nigh interminable” delay in § 5 proceedings in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, supra, at 389. There delay operated against the consumer. Here it operates against the producer. The Commission has been making efforts in this regard, through the establishment of guidelines for determining initial prices and other administrative devices. 43 F. P. C. Ann. Rep. 13, 119-120 (1963). However, we again call to its attention the dangers inherent in the accumulation of a large backlog of cases with its accompanying irreparable injury to the parties. Moreover, consumers may become directly affected thereby through the reluctance of producers to enter interstate markets because of the long delay incident to permanent certification. Procedures must be worked out, not only to clear up this docket congestion, but also, to maintain a reasonably clear current docket so that hearings may be had without inordinate delay. In this connection the techniques of the National Labor Relations Board might be studied with a view to determining whether its exemption practices, see Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U. S. 1, 3-4 (1957), might be helpful in the solution of the Commission’s problems.
Reversed.
Section 7 (c), 52 Stat. 824, as amended, 56 Stat. 83, 15 U. S. C. §717f (c), provides:
“(c) No natural-gas company or person which will be a natural-gas company upon completion of any proposed construction or extension shall engage in the transportation or sale of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or undertake the construction or extension of any facilities therefor, or acquire or operate any such facilities or extensions thereof, unless there is in force with respect to such natural-gas company a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission authorizing such acts or operations: Provided, however, That if any such natural-gas company or predecessor in interest was bona fide engaged in transportation or sale of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, on . . . [February 7, 1942], over the route or routes or within the area for which application is made and has so operated since that time, the Commission shall issue such certificate without requiring further proof that public convenience and necessity will be served by such operation, and .without further proceedings, if application for such certificate'is made to the Commission within ninety days after . . . [February 7, 1942]. Pending the determination of any such application, the continuance of such operation shall be lawful.
“In all other cases the Commission shall set the matter for hearing and shall give such reasonable notice of the hearing thereon to all interested persons as in its judgment may be necessary under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Commission; and the application shall be decided in accordance with the procedure provided in subsection (e) of this section and such certificate shall be issued or denied accordingly: Provided, however, That the Commission may issue a temporary certificate in cases of emergency, to assure maintenance of adequate service or to serve particular customers, without notice or hearing, pending the determination of an application for a certificate, and may by regulation exempt from the requirements of this section temporary acts or operations for which the issuance of a certificate will not be required in the public interest.”
Section 7 (e), 52 Stat. 824, as amended, 56 Stat. 84, 15 U. S. C. § 717f (e), provides:
“(e) Except in the cases governed by the provisos contained in subsection (c) of this section, a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing the whole or any part of the operation, sale, service, construction, extension, or acquisition covered by the application, if it is found that the applicant is able and willing properly to do the acts and to perform the service proposed and to conform to the provisions of the Act and the requirements, rules, and regulations of the Commission thereunder, and that the proposed service, sale, operation, construction, extension, or acquisition, to the extent authorized by the certificate, is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity; otherwise such application shall be denied. The Commission shall have the power to attach to the issuance of the certificate and to the exercise of the rights granted thereunder such reasonable terms and conditions as the public convenience and necessity may require.”
The Commission did have authority with reference to the entry of a natural gas company into a competitive market but not into new and unserviced markets.
See, e. g., Florida Economic Advisory Council v. Federal Power Comm’n, 102 U. S. App. D. C. 152, 251 F. 2d 643, cert. denied, 356 U. S. 959; Northern Natural Gas Co., 22 F. P. C. 164, 174-175, 180, aff’d sub nom. Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 108 U. S. App. D. C. 36, 278 F. 2d 870, cert. denied, 364 U. S. 891 (certificate conditioned upon removal of clauses permitting cancellation depending on price relationship of gas and competitive fuels in gas purchase contracts upon which feasibility of pipeline project depended); Transwestern Pipeline Co., 22 F. P. C. 391, 394-395, modified on rehearing, 22 F. P. C. 542 (minimum bill provisions of proposed tariff required to be modified); Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., 10 F. P. C. 185 (conditions requiring inclusion of interruptible rate schedules in tariffs); Trans-Continental Gas Pipe Line Co., 7 F. P. C. 24, 38-40 (commencement of service conditioned upon filing of new tariff satisfactory to Commission because of disapproval of certain terms of service); Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Co., 7 F. P. C. 257 (commencement of service conditioned upon filing of tariff satisfactory to Commission).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit concerns tax provisions enacted by Congress in 1971 to provide incentives for domestic manufacturers to increase their exports and in 1984 to limit and modify those incentives. The specific question presented involves the interpretation of a Treasury Regulation (26 CFR § 1.861—8(e)(3) (1979)) promulgated in 1977 that governs the accounting for research and development (R&D) expenses under both statutory schemes. We shall explain the general outlines of the two statutes before we focus on that regulation.
The 1971 statute provided special tax treatment for export sales made by an American manufacturer through a subsidiary that qualified as a “domestic international sales corporation” (DISC). The DISC itself is not a taxpayer; a portion of its income is deemed to have been distributed to its shareholders, and the shareholders must pay taxes on that portion, but no tax is payable on the DISC’S retained income until it is actually distributed. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 991-997. Typically, “a DISC is a wholly owned subsidiary of a U. S. corporation.” 1 Senate Finance Committee, Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, 98th Cong., p. 630, n. 1 (Comm. Print 1984) (hereinafter Committee Print). The statute thus provides an incentive to maximize the DISC’S share — and to minimize the parent’s share — of the parties’ aggregate income from export sales.
The DISC statute does not, however, allow the parent simply to assign all of the profits on its export sales to the DISC. Rather, “to avoid granting undue tax advantages,” the statute provides three alternative ways in which the parties may divert a limited portion of taxable income from the parent to the DISC. See 26 U. S. C. §§994(a)(1)-(3). Each of the alternatives assumes that the parent has sold the product to the DISC at a hypothetical “transfer price” that produced a profit for both seller and buyer when the product was resold to the foreign customer. The alternative used by Boeing in this suit limited the DISC’S taxable income to a little over half of the parties’ “combined taxable income” (CTI).
Soon after its enactment, the DISC statute became “the subject of an ongoing dispute between the United States and certain other signatories of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)” regarding whether the DISC provisions were impermissible subsidies that violated our treaty obligations. Committee Print 634. “To remove the DISC as a contentious issue and to avoid further disputes over retaliation, the United States made a commitment to the GATT Council on October 1, 1982, to propose legislation that would address the concerns of other GATT members.” Id., at 634-635. This ultimately resulted in the replacement of the DISC provisions in 1984 with the “foreign sales corporation” (FSC) provisions of the Code. See Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, §§801-805, 98 Stat. 985.
Unlike a DISC, an FSC is a foreign corporation, and a portion of its income is taxable by the United States. See ibid.; see also B. Bittker & J. Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders ¶ 17.14 (5th ed. 1987). Whereas a portion of a DISC’S income was tax deferred, a portion of an FSC’s income is exempted from taxation. Compare 26 U. S. C. §§991-997 with 26 U. S. C. §§921, 923 (1988 ed.). Hence, under the FSC regime, as under the DISC regime, it is in the parent’s interest to maximize the FSC’s share of the taxable income generated by export sales. Because the differences between the DISC and FSC regimes for the most part are immaterial to this suit, the analysis in this opinion will focus mainly on the DISC provisions.
The Internal Revenue Code gives the taxpayer an election either to capitalize and amortize the costs of R&D over a period of years or to deduct such expenses currently. See 26 U. S. C. § 174. The regulation at issue here, 26 CFR § 1.861-8(e)(3) (1979), deals with R&D expenditures for which the taxpayer has taken a current deduction. It tells the taxpaying parent and its DISC “what” must be treated as a cost when calculating CTI, and “how” those costs should be (a) allocated among different products and (b) apportioned between the DISC and its parent.
With respect to the “what” question, the Treasury might have adopted a broad approach defining the relevant R&D as including all of the parent’s products, or a narrow approach defining the relevant R&D as all R&D directly related to a particular product being exported. Instead, the regulation includes a list of two-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories (examples are “chemicals and allied products” and “transportation equipment”), and it requires that R&D for any product within the same category as the exported product be taken into account. See ibid. The regulation explains that R&D on any product “is an inherently speculative activity” that sometimes contributes unexpected benefits on other products, and “that the gross income derived from successful research and development must bear the cost of unsuccessful research and development.” Ibid.
With respect to the two “how” questions, the regulations use gross receipts from sales as the basis both for allocating the costs among the products within the broad R&D categories and also for apportioning those costs between the parent and the DISC. Thus, if the exported product constitutes 20 percent of the parties’ total sales of all products within an R&D category, 20 percent of the R&D cost is allocated to that product. And if export sales represent 70 percent of the total sales of that product, 70 percent of that amount, or 14 percent of the R&D, is apportioned to the DISC.
I
Petitioners (and cross-respondents) are The Boeing Company and subsidiaries that include a DISC and an FSC. For over 40 years Boeing has been a world leader in commercial aircraft development and a major exporter of commercial aircraft. During the period at issue in this litigation, the dollar volume of its sales amounted to about $64 billion, 67 percent of which were DISC-eligible export sales. The amount that Boeing spent on R&D during that period amounted to approximately $4.6 billion.
During the tax years at issue here, Boeing organized its internal operations along product lines (e. g., aircraft models 727, 737, 747, 767, 767) for management and accounting purposes, each of which constituted a separate “program” within the Boeing organization. For those purposes, it divided its R&D expenses into two broad categories: “Blue Sky” and “Company Sponsored Product Development.” The former includes the cost of broad-based research aimed at generally advancing the state of aviation technology and developing alternative designs of new commercial planes. The latter includes product-specific research pertaining to a specific program after the board of directors has given its approval for the production of a new model. With respect to its $1 billion of “Blue Sky” R&D, Boeing’s accounting was essentially consistent with 26 CFR § 1.861-8(e)(3) (1979). Its method of accounting for $3.6 billion of “Company Sponsored” R&D gave rise to this litigation.
Boeing’s accountants treated all of the Company Sponsored research costs as directly related to a single program, and as totally unrelated to any other program. Thus, for DISC purposes, the cost of Company Sponsored R&D directly related to the 767 model, for example, had no effect on the calculation of the “combined taxable income” produced by export sales of any other models. Moreover, because immense Company Sponsored research costs were routinely incurred while a particular model was being completed and before any sales of that model occurred, those costs effectively “disappeared” in the calculation of the CTI even for the model to which the R&D was most directly related. Almost half of the $3.6 billion of Company Sponsored R&D at issue in this suit was allocated to programs that had no sales in the year in which the research was conducted. That amount (approximately $1.75 billion) was deducted by Boeing currently in the calculation of its taxable income for the years at issue, but never affected the calculation of the CTI derived by Boeing and its DISC from export sales.
Pursuant to an audit, the Internal Revenue Service reallocated Boeing’s Company Sponsored R&D costs for the years 1979 to 1987, thereby decreasing the untaxed profits of its export subsidiaries and increasing the parent’s taxable profits from export sales. Boeing paid the additional tax obligation of $419 million and filed this suit seeking a refund. Relying on the decision of the Eighth Circuit in St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Commissioner, 34 F. 3d 1394 (1994), the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Boeing. It held that 26 CFR § 1.861-8(e)(3) (1979) is invalid as applied to DISC and FSC transactions because the regulation’s categorical treatment of R&D conflicted with congressional intent that there be a “direct” relationship between items of gross income and expenses “related thereto,” and with a specific DISC regulation giving the taxpayer the right to group and allocate income and costs by product or product line. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, 258 F. 3d 958 (2001), and we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the Circuits, 535 U. S. 1094 (2002). We now affirm.
II
Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code distinguishes between United States and foreign source income for several different purposes. See 26 U. S. C. § 861. The regulation at issue in this suit, 26 CFR § 1.861-8(e)(3) (1979), was promulgated pursuant to that general statute. Separate regulations promulgated under the DISC statute, 26 U. S. C. §§ 991-997, incorporate 26 CFR § 1.861-8(e)(3) (1979) by specific reference. See § 1.994-1(c)(6)(iii) (citing and incorporating the cost allocation rules of § 1.861-8). Boeing does not claim that its method of accounting for Company Sponsored R&D complied with § 1.861-8(e)(3). Rather, it argues that § 1.861-8(e)(3) is so plainly inconsistent with congressional intent and with other provisions of the DISC regulations that it cannot be validly applied to its computation of CTI for DISC purposes.
Boeing argues, in essence, that the statute and certain specific regulations promulgated pursuant to 26 U. S. C. § 994 give it an unqualified right to allocate its Company Sponsored R&D expenses to the specific products to which they are “factually related” and to exclude any allocated R&D from being treated as a cost of any other product. The relevant statutory text does not support its argument.
As we have already mentioned, the DISC statute gives the taxpayer a choice of three methods of determining the transfer price for an exported good. Boeing elected to use only the second method described in the following text:
“Inter-company pricing rules
“(a) In general
“In the case of a sale of export property to a DISC by a person described in section 482, the taxable income of such DISC and such person shall be based upon a transfer price which would allow such DISC to derive taxable income attributable to such sale (regardless of the sales price actually charged) in an amount which does not exceed the greatest of—
“(1) 4 percent of the qualified export receipts on the sale of such property by the DISC plus 10 percent of the export promotion expenses of such DISC attributable to such receipts,
“(2) 50 percent of the combined taxable income of such DISC and such person which is attributable to the qualified export receipts on such property derived as the result of a sale by the DISC plus 10 percent of the export promotion expenses of such DISC attributable to such receipts, or
“(3) taxable income based upon the sale price actually charged (but subject to the rules provided in section 482).
“(b) Rules for commissions, rentals, and marginal costing
“The Secretary shall prescribe regulations setting forth
“(2) rules for the allocation of expenditures in computing combined taxable income under subsection (a)(2) in those cases where a DISC is seeking to establish or maintain a market for export property.” 26 U. S. C. §§994(a)(1)(3), (b)(2) (emphasis added).
The statute does not define the term “combined taxable income,” nor does it specifically mention expenditures for R&D. Congress did grant the Secretary express authority to prescribe regulations for determining the proper allocation of expenditures in computing CTI in certain specific contexts. See, e.g., §§ 994(b)(1)-(2). Yet in promulgating 26 CFR §1.861-8 (1979), the Secretary of the Treasury exercised his rulemaking authority under 26 U. S. C. § 7806(a), which gives the Secretary general authority to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement” of the Internal Revenue Code. See 41 Fed. Reg. 49160 (1976) (“The proposed regulations are to be issued under the authority contained in section 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code”). Even if we regard the challenged regulation as interpretive because it was promulgated under § 7805(a)’s general rulemaking grant rather than pursuant to a specific grant of authority, we must still treat the regulation with deference. See Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner, 499 U. S. 564, 560-561 (1991).
The words that we have emphasized in the statutory text do place some limits on the Secretary’s interpretive authority. First, the “does not exceed” phrase places an upper limit on the share of the export profits that can be assigned to a DISC and also gives the taxpayer an unfettered right to select any of the three methods of setting a “transfer price.” Second, the use of the term “combined taxable income” in subsection (a)(2) makes it clear that the taxable income of the domestic parent is a part of the equation that should produce the CTI. As Boeing recognizes, even a charitable contribution to the Seattle Symphony that reduces its domestic earnings from sales of 767’s must be treated as a cost that is not definitely related to any particular category of income and thus must be apportioned among all categories of income, including income from export sales. See Brief for Petitioners in No. 01-1209, p. 8, n. 7. Third, the word “attributable” places a limit on the portion of the domestic parent’s taxable income that can be treated as a part of the CTI. It is this word that provides the statutory basis for Boeing’s position.
Under Boeing’s reading of the statute, a calculation of the domestic income “attributable” to the export sale of a 767 may include both the direct and indirect costs of manufacturing and selling 767’s, but it may not include the direct costs of selling anything else. Moreover, if Boeing’s accountants classify a particular cost as directly related to the 767, that classification is conclusive. Thus, while the Secretary asserts that Boeing’s R&D expenses are definitely related to all income in the relevant SIC category, Boeing claims the right to divide its R&D in a way that effectively creates three segments: (1) Blue Sky; (2) Company Sponsored R&D on products that have no sales in the current year; and (3) Company Sponsored R&D on products that are being sold currently. Boeing, like the Secretary, essentially treats Blue Sky R&D as án indirect cost in computing both its domestic taxable income and its CTI. With respect to the second segment, Boeing uses the R&D to reduce its domestic taxable earnings on every product it sells, but eliminates it entirely from the calculation of CTI on any product by charging the R&D costs to programs without any sales. The third segment is used for both domestic and CTI purposes, but with respect to CTI only for the export sales to which it is “factually related.”
The Secretary’s classification of all R&D as an indirect cost of all export sales of products in a broadly defined SIC category — in other words, as “attributable” to such sales — is surely not arbitrary. It has the virtue of providing consistent treatment for cost items used in computing the taxpayer’s domestic taxable income and its CTI. Moreover, its allocation of R&D expenditures to all products in a category even when specifically intended to improve only one or a few of those products is no more tenuous than the allocation of a chief executive officer’s salary to every product that a company sells even when he devotes virtually all of his time to the development of an Edsel.
On the other hand, even if Boeing’s method of accounting for R&D is fully justified for management purposes, it certainly produces anomalies for tax purposes. Most obvious is the fact that it enabled Boeing to deduct some $1.75 billion of expenditures from its domestic taxable earnings under 26 U. S. C. § 174 and never deduct a penny of those expenditures from its “combined taxable earnings” under the DISC statute. See Brief for Petitioners in No. 01-1209, at 11. Less obvious, but nevertheless significant, is that Boeing’s method assumed that Blue Sky research produces benefits for airplane models that are producing current income and — at the same time — assumed that Company Sponsored research related to a specific product, such as the 727, is not likely to produce benefits for other airplane models, such as the 737 or 767.
In all events, the mere use of the word “attributable” in the text of § 994 surely does not qualify the Secretary’s authority to decide whether a particular tax deductible expenditure made by the parent of a DISC is sufficiently related to its export sales to qualify as an indirect cost in the computation of the parties’ CTI. Boeing argues, however, that the text of § 994 should be read in light of § 861, the more general provision dealing with the distinction between domestic and foreign source income.
Title 26 U. S. C. § 861(b) contains the following two sentences:
“Taxable income from sources within United States
“From the items of gross income specified in subsection (a) as being income from sources within the United States there shall be deducted the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income from sources within the United States.” (Emphasis added.)
Focusing on the emphasized words, Boeing interprets this section as having created a background rule dividing all expenses into two categories: those that can be allocated to specific income and those that cannot. “Ratable” allocation is permissible for the second category, but not for the first, according to Boeing. Moreover, in Boeing’s view, any expense in the first category cannot be ratably apportioned across all classes of income.
There are at least two flaws in this argument. First, although the emphasized words authorize ratable apportionment of costs that cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of income, the sentence as a whole does not prohibit ratable apportionment of expenses that could be, but perhaps in fairness should not be, treated as direct costs. Second, the Secretary has the authority to prescribe regulations determining whether an expense can be properly apportioned to an item of gross income in the calculation of CTI. See 26 U. S. C. § 7805(a). Thus, as in this suit, if the Secretary reasonably determines that Company Sponsored R&D can be properly apportioned on a categorical basis, the italicized portion of § 861 is simply inapplicable.
In sum, Boeing’s arguments based on statutory text are plainly insufficient to overcome the deference to which the Secretary’s interpretation is entitled.
III
Boeing also advances two arguments based on the text of specific DISC regulations. The first resembles its argument based on the text of §861, and the second relies on regulations providing that certain accounting decisions made by the taxpayer shall be controlling.
The regulations included in 26 CFR §1.994-1 (1979) set forth intercompany pricing rules for DISCs. They generally describe the three methods of determining a transfer price, noting that the taxpayer may choose the most favorable method, and may group transactions to use one method for some export sales and another method for others. See ibid. With respect to the CTI method used by Boeing, there is a rule, § 1.994 — 1(c)(6), that describes the computation of CTI. The rule broadly defines the CTI of a DISC and its related supplier from a sale of export property as the excess of gross receipts over their total costs “which relate to such gross receipts.” Subdivision (iii) of that rule, on which Boeing relies, provides:
“Costs (other than cost of goods sold) which shall be treated as relating to gross receipts from sales of export property are (a) the expenses, losses, and other deductions definitely related, and therefore allocated and apportioned, thereto, and (b) a ratable part of any other expenses, losses, or other deductions which are not definitely related to a class of gross income, determined in a manner consistent with the rules set forth in § 1.861-8.” § 1.994-1(c)(6)(iii) (emphasis added).
Boeing interprets the emphasized words as prohibiting a ratable allocation of R&D expenditures that can be “definitely related” to particular export sales. The obvious response to this argument is provided by the final words in the paragraph. Whether such an expense can be “definitely related” is determined by the rules set forth in the very regulation that Boeing challenges, §1.861-8. Moreover, it seems quite clear that the Secretary could reasonably determine that expenditures on 767 research conducted in years before any 767’s were sold were not “definitely related” to any sales, but should be treated as an indirect cost of producing the gross income derived from the sale of all planes in the transportation equipment category.
Boeing also argues that the regulations expressly allow it to allocate and apportion R&D expenses to groups of export sales that are based on industry usage rather than SIC categories. The regulations providing the strongest support for this argument are §§ 1.994—1(c)(7)(i) and (ii)(a), which control the grouping of transactions for the purpose of determining the transfer price of sales of export property, and §1.994-1(c)(6)(iv), which governs the grouping of receipts when the CTI method of transfer pricing is used. Treasury Regulation § 1.994-1(c)(7) reads, in part, as follows:
“Grouping transactions, (i) Generally, the determinations under this section are to be made on a transaction-by-transaction basis. However, at the annual choice of the taxpayer some or all of these determinations may be made on the basis of groups consisting of products or product lines.
“(ii) A determination by a taxpayer as to a product or a product line will be accepted by a district director if such determination conforms to any one of the following standards: (a) A recognized industry or trade usage, or (b) the 2-digit major groups... of the Standard Industrial Classification....”
As we understand the statutory and regulatory scheme, it gives controlling effect to three important choices by the taxpayer. First, the taxpayer may elect to deduct R&D expenses on an annual basis instead of capitalizing and amortizing those costs. See 26 U. S. C. § 174(a)(1). Second, when engaging in export transactions with a DISC, the taxpayer may choose any one of the three methods of determining the transfer price. See § 994(a). Third, the taxpayer may decide how best to group those transactions for purposes of applying the transfer pricing methods. See 26 CFR § 1.994-1(c)(7) (1979). Conceivably, the taxpayer could account for each sale separately, by product lines, or by grouping all of its export sales together. These regulations confirm the finality of the third type of choice (i. e., which groups of sales will be evaluated under one of the three alternative transfer pricing methods), but do not speak to the questions answered by the regulation at issue in this suit — namely, whether or how a particular research cost should be allocated and apportioned.
Nor does § 1.994-1(c)(6)(iv) support Boeing’s argument. It provides that a “taxpayer’s choice in accordance with subparagraph (7) of this paragraph as to the grouping of transactions shall be controlling, and costs deductible in a taxable year shall be allocated and apportioned to the items or classes of gross income of such taxable year resulting from such grouping.” The regulation makes clear that if the taxpayer selects the CTI method of transfer pricing (as Boeing did), then the taxpayer may choose to group export receipts according to product lines, two-digit SIC codes, or on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Ibid. The regulation also establishes that there shall be an allocation and apportionment of all relevant costs deducted in the taxable year. Ibid. Notably, however, the regulation simply does not speak to how costs should be allocated among different items or classes of gross income and apportioned between the DISC and its parent once the taxpayer (pursuant to § 1.994-1(c)(6)) groups its gross receipts. Treasury Regulation § 1.861-8(e)(3) fills this gap by providing that R&D expenditures that are related to all income reasonably connected with the taxpayer’s relevant two-digit SIC category or categories are “allocable to all items of gross income as a class... related to such product category (or categories).” 26 CFR § 1.861-8(e)(3) (1979) (emphasis added).
IV
Boeing also relies heavily on legislative history, particularly on statements in Reports prepared by the tax-writing committees of the House and the Senate on the DISC statute. Those Reports are virtually identical in terms of their discussion of the DISC provisions. See H. R. Rep., at 58-95; S. Rep., at 90-129. Neither says anything about R&D costs. They both contain statements supporting the proposition that in determining how to calculate income that qualifies for a tax benefit, the expenses to be deducted from gross income are those expenses that are “directly related” to the income. See H. R. Rep., at 74; S. Rep., at 107. Those statements are not, however, inconsistent with the proposition that particular R&D expenses may be factually related to more than one item of income, or with the proposition that the Secretary has broad authority to promulgate regulations determining which expenses are directly or indirectly related to particular items of income.
If anything, what little relevant legislative history there is in this suit weighs in favor of the Government’s position in two important respects. First, whereas the DISC transfer price could be set at a level that attributed over half of the CTI to the DISC, when Congress enacted the FSC provisions in 1984, it lowered the maximum allowable share of CTI attributable to an FSC to 23 percent. Compare 26 U.S.C. §994(a)(2) with 26 U.S.C. §926(a)(2) (1988 ed.). This dramatizes the point that even though the purpose of the DISC and FSC statutes was to provide American firms with a tax incentive to increase their exports, Congress did not intend to grant “undue tax advantages” to firms. S. Rep., at 13. Rather, the statutory formulas were designed to place ceilings on the amount of those special tax benefits. See Committee Print 636 (“[T]he income of the foreign sales corporation must be determined according to transfer prices specified in the bill: either actual prices for sales between unrelated, independent parties or, if the sales are between related parties, formula prices which are intended to comply with GATT’s requirement of arm’s-length prices”).
Second, the 1977 R&D regulation at issue in this suit had been in effect for seven years when Congress enacted the FSC provisions. Yet Congress did not legislatively override 26 CFR § 1.861-8(e)(3) (1979) in enacting the FSC provisions. In fact, although a moratorium was placed on the application of § 1.861-8(e)(3) for purposes of the sourcing of income in 1981, a 1984 conference agreement specified that the moratorium would “not apply for other purposes, such as the computation of combined taxable income of a DISC (or FSC) and its related supplier.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 98-861, p. 1263 (1984). The fact that Congress did not legislatively override 26 CFR § 1.861-8(e)(3) (1979) in enacting the FSC provisions in 1984 serves as persuasive evidence that Congress regarded that regulation as a correct implementation of its intent. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580-581 (1978).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
In 1996, the provisions of 26 CFR § 1.861-8 were amended, renumbered, and republished as 26 CFR §1.861-17. See 26 CFR §1.861-17 (2002); see also 60 Fed. Reg. 66503 (1995).
To qualify as a DISC, at least 95 percent of a corporation’s gross receipts must arise from qualified export receipts. See 26 U. S. C. § 992(a)(1)(A). In addition, at least 95 percent of the corporation’s assets must be export related. See § 992(a)(1)(B).
S. Rep. No. 92-437, p. 13 (1971) (hereinafter S. Rep.).
To be more precise, it allowed the DISC “to derive taxable income attributable to [an export sale] in an amount which does not exceed... 50 percent of the combined taxable income of [the DISC and the parent] plus 10 percent of the export promotion expenses of such DISC attributable to such receipts....” 26 U. S. C. §994(a)(2).
A hypothetical example in both the House and Senate Committee Reports illustrated the computation of a transfer price of $816 based on a DISC’S selling price of $1,000 and the parent’s cost of goods sold of $650. The gross margin of $350 was reduced by $180 (including the DISC’S promotion expenses of $90, the parent’s directly related selling and administrative expenses of $60, and the parent’s prorated indirect expenses of $30), to produce a CTI of $170. Half of that amount ($85) plus 10 percent of the DISC’s promotion expenses ($9) gave the DISC its allowable taxable income of $94, leaving only $76 of income immediately taxable to the parent. The $184 aggregate of the two amounts attributed to the DISC (promotion expenses of $90 plus its $94 share of CTI) subtracted from the $1,000 gross receipt produced the “transfer price” of $816. See S. Rep., at 108, n. 7; H. R. Rep. No. 92-533, p. 74, n. 7 (1971) (hereinafter H. R. Rep.).
In 2000, Congress repealed and replaced the FSC provisions with the “extraterritorial income” exclusion of 26 U. S. C. § 114.
Two aspects of the 1984 statute that do have special significance to this suit are discussed in Part IV, infra.
Treasury Regulation § 1.861-8 (1979) also specifies how other specific items of expense should be treated. See, e. g., 26 CFR § 1.861-8(e)(2) (1979) (interest fees); § 1.861-8(e)(5) (legal and accounting fees); § 1.861-8(e)(6) (income taxes).
The original regulation used two-digit SIC categories. See §1.861-8(e)(3). The current regulation uses narrower three-digit SIC categories, see 26 CFR § 1.861-17(a)(2)(ii) (2002), but the change is not relevant to this suit.
Because all of Boeing’s commercial aircraft were “transportation equipment” within the meaning of the Treasury Regulation, it properly allocated all of its Blue Sky research among all of its programs, and then apportioned those costs between the parent and the DISC. However, according to the Government, it erroneously did so on the basis of hours of direct labor rather than sales. See Brief for United States 10.
When Boeing charged R&D costs to programs that had no sales in the year the research was conducted, the R&D costs effectively “disappeared” in the sense that they were not accounted for by Boeing in computing its CTI.
This assumption, of course, runs contrary to the Secretary’s determination that R&D “is an inherently speculative activity” that sometimes contributes unexpected benefits on other products. 26 CFR § 1.861-8(e)(3)(i)(A) (1979).
Treasury Regulation § 1.994 — 1(c)(6), 26 CFR § 1.994-1(c)(6) (1979), provides in part:
“Combined taxable income. For purposes of this section, the combined taxable income of a DISC and its related supplier from a sale of export property is the excess of the gross receipts (as defined in section 993(f)) of the DISC from such sale over the total costs of the DISC and related supplier which relate to such gross receipts. Gross receipts from a sale do not include interest with respect to the sale. Combined taxable income under this paragraph shall be determined after taking into account under paragraph (e)(2) of this section all adjustments required by section 482 with respect to transactions to which such section is applicable. In determining the gross receipts of the DISC and the total costs of the DISC and related supplier which relate to such gross receipts, the following rules shall be applied:
“(i) Subject to subdivisions (ii) through (v) of this subparagraph, the taxpayer’s method of accounting used in computing taxable income will be accepted for purposes of determining amounts and the taxable year for which items of income and expense (including depreciation) are taken into account. See § 1.991-1(b)(2) with respect to the method of accounting which may be used by a DISC.”
In support of its argument that §§ 1.994-1(c) and 1.861-8(e)(3) conflict, Boeing also points to various proposed regulations, including example 1 of proposed regulation §1.861-8(g). See Brief for Petitioners in No. 01-1209, pp. 22-26. Unlike Boeing and the dissent, see post, at 458-459 (opinion of Thomas, J.), we find these proposed regulations to be of little consequence given that they were nothing more than mere proposals. In 1972 — when regulations governing DISCs were first proposed — the Secretary made clear that the proposed regulations were suggestions only and that whatever final regulations were ultimately adopted would govern. See Technical Memor
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellee Robert C. Ballard is a lieutenant in the United States Navy. After more than nine years of active service as a commissioned officer, he failed, for a second time, to be selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant commander, and was therefore subject to mandatory discharge under 10 U. S. C. § 6382 (a). He brought suit in federal court claiming that if he had been a woman officer, he would have been subject to a different separation statute, 10 U. S. C. § 6401, under which he would have been entitled to 13 years of commissioned service before a mandatory discharge for want of promotion. He claimed that the application of § 6382 to him, when compared with the treatment of women officers subject to § 6401, was an unconstitutional discrimination based on sex in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The District Judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Ballard’s discharge. Subsequently, a three-judge District Court was convened to hear the claim pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2282, 2284. After hearings upon motions by the Government defendants, that court issued a preliminary injunction against Ballard’s discharge. 350 F. Supp. 167. Thereafter, the case came before the three-judge court for decision on the merits. Relying upon Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, and concluding that the challenged mandatory-discharge provisions are supported solely by considerations of fiscal and administrative policy, the court held that § 6382 is unconstitutional because the 13-year tenure provision of § 6401 discriminates in favor of women without sufficient justification. 360 F. Supp. 643. Accordingly, the court enjoined the Navy from discharging Ballard for failure to be promoted to the grade of lieutenant commander before the expiration of 13 years of commissioned service. Id., at 648. We noted probable jurisdiction of this appeal from that injunctive order. 415 U. S. 912. See 28 U. S. C. § 1253.
I
At the base of the system governing the promotion and attrition of male line officers in the Navy is a congressional designation of the authorized number of the Navy’s enlisted personnel, 10 U. S. C. § 5401, and a correlative limitation upon the number of active line officers as a percentage of that figure. § 5403. Congress has also established the ratio of distribution of line officers in the several grades above lieutenant in fixed proportions to the total number of line officers. §§ 5442, 5447 (a).
The Secretary of the Navy is required periodically to convene selection boards to consider and recommend for promotion male fine officers in each of the separate ranks, § 5701, and must provide the boards so convened with the number of male line officers that may be recommended for promotion to the next higher grade. § 5756. Eligible officers are then recommended for promotion by the selection boards, based upon merit, and are placed on a promotion list and promoted in due course as vacancies occur in the higher ranks. § 5769. Because the number of lieutenant commanders is set by statute, the number of lieutenants, like Ballard, who may be recommended for promotion and placed on a promotion list in any year depends upon the number of vacancies existing and estimated for the coming year in the rank of lieutenant commander. § 5756.
Wholly separate promotion lines are established for the various categories of officers. Thus, in addition to the selection boards that are convened to review the promotion of male line officers, different selection boards are convened to recommend for promotion staff corps officers (except for women officers appointed under § 5590), § 5702, male officers in the Marine Corps, § 5703, women line officers, § 5704 (a), and women staff officers who are appointed under § 5590. § 5704 (b). The convening of these separate selection boards permits naval officers within each category to be considered for promotion in comparison with other officers with similar opportunities and experience.
Because the Navy has a pyramidal organizational structure, fewer officers are needed at each higher rank than are needed in the rank below. In the absence of some mandatory attrition of naval officers, the result would be stagnation of promotion of younger officers and disincentive to naval service. If the officers who failed to be promoted remained in the service, the promotion of younger officers through the ranks would be retarded. Accordingly, a basic “up or out” philosophy was developed to maintain effective leadership by heightening • competition for the higher ranks while providing junior officers with incentive and opportunity for promotion. It is for this reason, and not merely because of administrative or fiscal policy considerations, that § 6382 (a) requires that lieutenants be discharged when they are “considered as having failed of selection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant commander ... for the second time.” Similar selection-out rules apply to officers in different ranks who are twice passed over for promotion.
The phrase “failed of selection for promotion” in § 6382 (a) is a statutory term of art. It does not embrace all eligible officers who have been considered and not selected for promotion. Before an officer is considered to have failed of selection for the first time, he must have been placed within a “promotion zone” established by the Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary each year establishes “promotion zones” of officers who will either be selected for promotion to the next higher grade or who will be considered to have failed of selection for promotion for the first time. See §§ 5764, 5776. The number of officers in the zones, established for each grade, is set at a level to ensure a flow of promotions consistent with the appropriate terms of service in each grade, see § 5768, and to provide opportunity for promotion of others in succeeding years. The number of officers within each zone is thus based on “a consideration of the number of vacancies estimated for the next higher grade in each of the next five years, the number of officers who will be eligible for selection in each of those years, and the terms of service that those officers will have completed.” § 5764 (a).
Section 6401 is the mandatory-attrition provision that applies to women officers appointed under § 5590, including all women line officers and most women officers in the Staff Corps. It provides for mandatory discharge of a woman officer appointed under § 5590 when she “is not on a promotion list” and “has completed 13 years of active commissioned service in the Navy.” § 6401. Section 6401 was initially intended approximately to equate the length of service of women officers before mandatory discharge for want of promotion with that of male lieutenants discharged under § 6382 (a). Subsequently, however, Congress specifically recognized that the provisions of § 6401 would probably result in longer tenure for women lieutenants than for male lieutenants under § 6382. When it enacted legislation eliminating many of the former restrictions on women officers’ participation in the naval service in 1967, Congress expressly left undisturbed the 13-year tenure provision of § 6401. And both the House and the Senate Reports observed that the attrition provisions governing women line officers would parallel “present provisions with respect to male officers except that the discharge of male officers probably occurs about 2 years earlier.” S. Rep. No. 676, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 12; H. R. Rep. No. 216, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 17 (emphasis added).
II
It is against this background that we must decide whether, agreeably to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Congress may accord to women naval officers a 13-year tenure of commissioned service under § 6401 before mandatory discharge for want of promotion, while requiring under § 6382 (a) the mandatory discharge of male lieutenants who have been twice passed over for promotion but who, like Ballard, may have had less than 13 years of commissioned service. In arguing that Congress has acted unconstitutionally, appellee relies primarily upon the Court’s recent decisions in Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, and Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71.
In Frontiero the Court was concerned with “the right of a female member of the uniformed services to claim her spouse as a 'dependent’ for the purposes of obtaining increased quarters allowances and medical and dental benefits under 37 U. S. C. §§ 401, 403, and 10 U. S. C. §§ 1072, 1076, on an equal footing with male members.” 411 U. S., at 678. Under the governing statutes, a serviceman could automatically claim his spouse as a “dependent,” but a servicewoman’s male spouse was not considered to be a “dependent” unless he was shown in fact to be dependent upon his wife for more than one-half of his support. The challenged classification was based exclusively on gender, and the Government conceded that the different treatment of men and women service members was based solely upon considerations of administrative convenience. The Court found this disparity of treatment constitutionally invalid. In the words of the plurality opinion:
“[A]ny statutory scheme which draws a sharp line between the sexes, solely for the purpose of achieving administrative convenience, necessarily commands 'dissimilar treatment for men and women who are . . . similarly situated,’ and therefore involves the 'very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the [Constitution] . . . .’ Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S., at 77, 76. We therefore conclude that, by according differential treatment to male and female members of the uniformed services for the sole purpose of achieving administrative convenience, the challenged statutes violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment insofar as they require a female member to prove the dependency of her husband.” Id., at 690-691.
The case of Reed v. Reed, supra, involved quite similar considerations. In that case the Court considered the constitutionality of an Idaho probate code provision that, in establishing who would administer a decedent’s estate, gave a “mandatory” preference to men over women when they were in the same degree of relationship to the decedent. The Idaho law permitted no consideration of the individual qualifications of particular men or women as potential administrators, but simply preferred males in order to reduce probate expenses by eliminating contests over the relative qualifications of men and women otherwise similarly situated. The Court held that “[b]y providing dissimilar treatment for men and women who are thus similarly situated, the challenged section violates the Equal Protection Clause.” 404 U. S., at 77.
In both Reed and Frontiero the challenged classifications based on sex were premised on overbroad generalizations that could not be tolerated under the Constitution. In Reed, the assumption underlying the Idaho statute was that men would generally be better estate administrators than women. In Frontiero, the assumption underlying the Federal Armed Services benefit statutes was that female spouses of servicemen would normally be dependent upon their husbands, while male spouses of servicewomen would not.
In contrast, the different treatment of men and women naval officers under §§ 6382 and 6401 reflects, not archaic and overbroad generalizations, but, instead, the demonstrable fact that male and female line officers in the Navy-are not similarly situated with respect to opportunities for professional service. Appellee has not challenged the current restrictions on women officers’ participation in combat and in most sea duty. Specifically, “women may not be assigned to duty in aircraft that are engaged in combat missions nor may they be assigned to duty on vessels of the Navy other than hospital ships and transports.” 10 U. S. C. § 6015. Thus, in competing for promotion, female lieutenants will not generally have compiled records of seagoing service comparable to those of male lieutenants. In enacting and retaining § 6401, Congress may thus quite rationally have believed that women line officers had less opportunity for promotion than did their male counterparts, and that a longer period of tenure for women officers would, therefore, be consistent with the goal to provide women officers with “fair and equitable career advancement programs.” H. R. Rep. No. 216, supra, at 5. Cf. Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U. S. 351.
The complete rationality of this legislative classification is underscored by the fact that in corps where male and female lieutenants are similarly situated, Congress has not differentiated between them with respect to tenure. Thus women staff officers not appointed under § 5590 are subject to the same mandatory attrition rule of § 6382 (a) as are male officers. These include officers in the Medical, Dental, Judge Advocate General’s, and Medical Service Corps. See 10 U. S. C. §§ 5574, 5578, 5578a, 5579. Conversely, active male lieutenants who are members of the Nurse Corps, like female lieutenants in that Corps, are within the ambit of 10 U. S. C. § 6396 (c), which contains a 13-year tenure provision like § 6401.
In both Reed and Frontiero the reason asserted to justify the challenged gender-based classifications was administrative convenience, and that alone. Here, on the contrary, the operation of the statutes in question results in a flow of promotions commensurate with the Navy’s current needs and serves to motivate qualified commissioned officers to so conduct themselves that they may realistically look forward to higher levels of command. This Court has recognized that “it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise.” Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 17. See also Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83, 94. The responsibility for determining how best our Armed Forces shall attend to that business rests with Congress, see U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, els. 12-14, and with the President. See U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 1. We cannot say that, in exercising its broad constitutional power here, Congress has violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The judgment is reversed.
Title 10 U. S. C. §6382 provides:
“(a) Each officer on the active list of the Navy serving in the grade of lieutenant, except an officer in the Nurse Corps, and each officer on the active list of the Marine Corps serving in the grade of captain shall be honorably discharged on June 30 of the fiscal year in which he is considered as having failed of selection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant commander or major for the second time. However, if he so requests, he may be honorably discharged at any time during that fiscal year.
“(d) This section does not apply to women officers appointed under section 5590 of this title or to officers designated for limited duty.”
Ballard’s scheduled discharge carried with it an entitlement to a “lump-sum” severance payment of approximately $15,000, 10 U. S. C. ■ § 6382 (c), but would have terminated Ballard’s total service time (including seven years of enlisted service) short of the 20 years of service necessary for substantially greater retirement benefits.
Title 10 U. S. C. §6401 (a) provides:
“Each woman officer on the active list of the Navy, appointed under section 5590' of this title, who holds a permanent appointment in the grade of lieutenant and each woman officer on the active list of the Marine Corps who holds a permanent appointment in the grade of captain shall be honorably discharged on June 30 of the fiscal year in which—
“(1) she is not on a promotion list; and
“(2) she has completed 13 years of active commissioned service in the Navy or in the Marine Corps.
“However, if she so requests, she may be honorably discharged at any time during that fiscal year.”
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in pertinent part that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Although it contains no Equal Protection Clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the Federal Government from engaging in discrimination that is “so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.” Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 499. See also Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163, 168.
Similarly, the authorized strength of the Supply Corps and the Civil Engineers Corps is established in set proportions to the authorized number of line officers. 10 U. S. C. § 5404 (a). More complicated formulas set the bounds for the numbers of staff officers in ■ other corps. E. g., § 5404 (b).
See S. Rep. No. 2120, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 4. Parts of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 that affected naval officers were codified in 10 U. S. C. § 5401 et seq., by the Act of Aug. 10, 1956, 70A Stat. 297. Title 10 U. S. C. § 6382 (a) is a codification of § 312 (h) of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 860, and that section was based, in turn, on § 12 (c) of the Act of June 23, 1938, 52 Stat. 949.
Title 10 U. S. C. § 6382 (b) calls for the mandatory, discharge of lieutenants (junior grade) who twice fail to be selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant. In the grades above lieutenant, statutory provisions require the mandatory retirement, instead of discharge, of officers twice passed over for promotion. 10 U. S. C. • §§ 6376, 6379, 6380.
Section 6401 does not apply to women officers, appointed pursuant to 10 U. S. C. §§ 5574, 5578, 5578a, and 5579, who are in the Medical, Dental, Judge Advocate General’s, and Medical Service Corps. These women staff officers are, like male officers, subject to §6382 (a).
The reason for the “not on a promotion list” language of § 6401, as contrasted with the “failed of selection” language of §6382 (a), is in part historical. Section 6401 was enacted as §207 (j) of the Women's Armed Services Integration Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 368. The “promotion zone” system was not established for women appointed under § 5590 until 1967. Pub. L. 90-130, 81 Stat. 374 (1967). See § 5764(d).
See Hearings on S. 1527 before the Senate Committee on Armed Services (subsequently S. 1641), 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 39. Although the statutory eligibility periods for promotion through the ranks to lieutenant commander is somewhat shorter, § 5751 (b), the normal time in service as an ensign, lieutenant (junior grade), and lieutenant is 12 years under peacetime conditions. § 5768 (a). Accordingly, a male line officer who had achieved the rank of lieutenant would typically have completed 12 years of service before being considered for the rank of lieutenant commander, and would have completed 13 years of service before being passed over twice for promotion to the grade of lieutenant commander.
See Pub. L. 90-130, 81 Stat. 374 (1967). This Act repealed numerical and percentage restrictions on women officers in certain grades, removed restrictions on permanent appointment of women officers to the rank of captain, and authorized women officers under certain circumstances to be eligible for flag rank. Congress also established a “promotion zone” system for women officers and indicated that the promotion and attrition of female officers were generally to correspond to the treatment of male officers. S. Rep. No. 676, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 2.
According to the brief of the Solicitor General, the tenure differential has since been increased by the removal of time-in-grade restrictions and accelerated promotions resulting from the Vietnam conflict. See Exec. Order No. 11437, Dec. 2, 1968, 3 CFR 754 (1966-1970 Comp.). Thus in recent years the discharge of male officers under § 6382 (a) may have occurred about four years earlier than the discharge of women officers under § 6401, instead of the two years’ ■difference acknowledged by Congress in 1967.
The dissenting opinion argues that, in retaining § 6401 in 1967, Congress may not have intended to give a longer tenure to women line officers than to their male counterparts, because “it is certainly plausible to conclude that Congress continued to believe, as it had in 1948, that the separation provisions for men and women would, given the opportunity to work properly, result in equal average tenure for both sexes.” Post, at 517. This conclusion cannot, however, be reconciled with Congress’ recognition that mandatory retirement provisions for women line officers “parallel present provisions with respect to male officers except that the discharge of male officers probably occurs about 2 years earlier.” S. Rep. No. 676, supra, at 12; H. R. Rep. No. 216, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 17 (emphasis added). Alternatively, the dissent seems to imply that the “anomalous” retention in 1967 of the 13-year tenure provision of § 6401 may have resulted from congressional inadvertence. Post, at 514-515. But this view cannot be squared with the legislative history either. A major factor prompting the 1967 amendments was Congress’ express concern that unless restrictions on promotions of women naval officers were lifted, the operation of § 6401 would cause excessive forced retirement of women lieutenants. In discussing the problem, the House Report explicitly described the 13-year provision:
“A particularly severe problem of promotion stagnation exists among WAVE officers in the Navy. The present grade limitations on promotion of WAVE officers to the grades of commander-lieutenant commander have so reduced the vacancies that the Navy will be forced to discharge most regular WAVE lieutenants when they reach their 13th year of service if r.elief is not provided.
“Present law (sec. 6401, title 10, United States Code) provides that women officers on the active list of the Navy in the grade of lieutenant must be discharged on June 30 of the fiscal year in which they complete 13 years of active commissioned service if not on a promotion list that year. The Navy estimates that without legislative relief, the attrition among women line lieutenants will average 50 percent or more over the next 5 years. The Navy considers such heavy attrition unacceptable.” H. R. Rep. No. 216, supra, at 6.
It is thus clear that Congress in 1967 intentionally retained the 13-year tenure provision of § 6401, and did so with specific knowledge that it gave women line officers a longer tenure than their male .counterparts.
We observe that because of the restrictions that were removed from women officers’ participation in naval service in 1967, see Act of Nov. 8, 1967, 81 Stat. 374; S. Rep. No. 676, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., more opportunity has become available for women officers. We are told by the Solicitor General that since 1967, the Secretary of the Navy has implemented a program for acceleration of women officers’ promotion and that today women are being considered for promotion within the same time periods as are men. Apparently believing that the need for a tenure differential has subsided, the Department of Defense has submitted a bill to Congress that would substitute for § 6401 the same rule that governs male lieutenants. See §§ 2 (5) and 4(18)(L) of H. R. 12405 (93d Cong., 2d Sess.), which contains a new provision as a proposed replacement of both § 6382 and § 6401. These developments no more than reinforce the view that it is for Congress, and not for the courts, to decide when the policy goals sought to be served by § 6401 are no longer necessary to the Navy’s officer promotion and attrition programs.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U. S. C. § 505, provides in relevant part that in any copyright infringement action “the court may... award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.” The question presented in this case is what standards should inform a court’s decision to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant in a copyright infringement action — a question that has produced conflicting views in the Courts of Appeals.
Petitioner John Fogerty is a successful musician, who, in the late 1960’s, was the. lead singer and songwriter of a popular music group known as “Creedence Clearwater Revival.” In 1970, he wrote a song entitled “Run Through the Jungle” and sold the exclusive publishing rights to predeeessors-ininterest of respondent Fantasy, Inc., who later obtained the copyright by assignment. The music group disbanded in 1972 and Fogerty subsequently published under another recording label. In 1985, he published and registered a copyright to a song entitled “The Old Man Down the Road,” which was released on an album distributed by Warner Brothers Records, Inc. Respondent Fantasy, Inc., sued Fogerty, Warner Brothers, and affiliated companies in District Court, alleging that “The Old Man Down the Road” was merely “Run Through the Jungle” with new words. The copyright infringement claim went to trial and a jury returned a verdict in favor of Fogerty.
After his successful defense of the action, Fogerty moved for reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 17 U. S. C. § 505. The District Court denied the motion, finding that Fantasy’s infringement suit was not brought frivolously or in bad faith as required by Circuit precedent for an award of attorney’s fees to a successful defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 984 F. 2d 1524 (CA9 1993), and declined to abandon the existing Ninth Circuit standard for awarding attorney’s fees which treats successful plaintiffs and successful defendants differently. Under'that standard, commonly termed the “dual” standard, prevailing plaintiffs are generally awarded attorney’s fees as a matter of course, while prevailing defendants must show that the original suit was frivolous or brought in bad faith. In contrast, some Courts of Appeals follow the so-called “evenhanded” approach in which no distinction is made between prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for example, has ruled that “we do not require bad faith, nor do we mandate an allowance of fees as a concomitant of prevailing in every case, but we do favor an evenhanded approach.” Lieb v. Topstone Industries, Inc., 788 F. 2d 151, 156 (1986).
We granted certiorari, 509 U. S. 903 (1993), to address an important area of federal law and to resolve the conflict between the Ninth Circuit’s “dual” standard for awarding attorney’s fees under §505, and the so-called “evenhanded” approach exemplified by the Third Circuit. We reverse.
Respondent advances three arguments in support of the dual standard followed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case. First, it contends that the language of § 505, when read in the light of our decisions construing similar fee-shifting language, supports the rule. Second, it asserts that treating prevailing plaintiffs and defendants differently comports with the “objectives” and “equitable considerations” underlying the Copyright Act as a whole. Finally, respondent contends that the legislative history of §505 indicates that Congress ratified the dual standard which it claims was “uniformly” followed by the lower courts under identical language in the 1909 Copyright Act. We address each of these arguments in turn.
The statutory language — “the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs” — gives no hint that successful plaintiffs are to be treated differently from successful defendants. But respondent contends that our decision in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412 (1978), in which we construed virtually identical language, supports a differentiation in treatment between plaintiffs and defendants.
Christiansburg construed the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which in relevant part provided that the court, “in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party... a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs____” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(k). We had earlier held, interpreting the cognate provision of Title II of that Act, 42 U. S. C. §2000a-3(b), that a prevailing plaintiff “should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless some special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402 (1968). This decision was based on what we found to be the important policy objectives of the Civil Rights statutes, and the intent of Congress to achieve such objectives through the use of plaintiffs as “‘private attorney[s] general.’” Ibid. In Christians-burg, supra, we determined that the same policy considerations were not at work in the case of a prevailing civil rights defendant. We noted that a Title VII plaintiff, like a Title II plaintiff in Piggie Park, is “the chosen instrument of Congress to vindicate ‘a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority.’ ” 434 U. S., at 418. We also relied on the admittedly sparse legislative history to indicate that different standards were to be applied to successful plaintiffs than to successful defendants.
Respondent points to our language in Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U. S. 754, 758, n. 2 (1989), that “fee-shifting statutes’ similar language is a ‘strong indication’ that they are to be interpreted alike.” But here we think this normal indication is overborne by the factors relied upon in our Christiansburg opinion that are absent in the case of the Copyright Act. The legislative history of §505 provides no support for treating prevailing plaintiffs and defendants differently with respect to the recovery of attorney’s fees. The attorney’s fees provision of § 505 of the 1976 Act was carried forward verbatim from the 1909 Act with very little discussion. The relevant House Report provides simply:
“Under section 505 the awarding of costs and attorney’s fees are left to the court’s discretion, and the section also makes clear that neither costs nor attorney’s fees can be awarded to or against ‘the United States or an officer thereof.’” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 163 (1976).
See also S. Rep. No. 94-473, p. 145 (1975) (same). Other courts and commentators have noted the paucity of legislative history of § 505. See, e. g., Cohen v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 617 F. Supp. 619, 621 (ED Va. 1985), aff’d on other grounds, 788 F. 2d 247 (CA4 1986). See also Jaszi, 505 And All That — The Defendant’s Dilemma, 55 Law & Contemp. Prob. 107, 107-108, and nn. 1, 2 (1992).
The goals and objectives of the two Acts are likewise not completely similar. Oftentimes, in the civil rights context, impecunious “private attorney general” plaintiffs can ill afford to litigate their claims against defendants with more resources. Congress sought to redress this balance in part, and to provide incentives for the bringing of meritorious lawsuits, by treating successful plaintiffs more favorably than successful defendants in terms of the award of attorney’s fees. The primary objective of the Copyright Act is to encourage the production of original literary, artistic, and musical expression for the good of the public. See infra, at 527. In the copyright context, it has been noted that “[entities which sue for copyright infringement as plaintiffs can run the gamut from corporate behemoths to starving artists; the same is true of prospective copyright infringement defendants.” Cohen, supra, at 622-623.
We thus conclude that respondent’s argument based on our fee-shifting decisions under the Civil Rights Act must fail.
Respondent next argues that the policies and objectives of § 505 and of the Copyright Act in general are best served by the “dual approach” to the award of attorney’s fees. The most common reason advanced in support of the dual approach is that, by awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing plaintiffs as a matter of course, it encourages litigation of meritorious claims of copyright infringement. See, e. g., McCulloch v. Albert E. Price, Inc., 823 F. 2d 316, 323 (CA9 1987) (“Because section 505 is intended in part to encourage the assertion of colorable copyright claims, to deter infringement, and to make the plaintiff whole, fees are generally awarded to a prevailing plaintiff”) (citations omitted); Diamond v. Am-Law Publishing Corp., 745 F. 2d 142, 148 (CA2 1984) (same). Indeed, respondent relies heavily on this argument. We think the argument is flawed because it expresses a one-sided view of the purposes of the Copyright Act. While it is true that one of the goals of the Copyright Act is to discourage infringement, it is by no means the only goal of that Act. In the first place, it is by no means always the case that the plaintiff in an infringement action is the only holder of a copyright; often times, defendants hold copyrights too, as exemplified in the case at hand. See Lieb v. Topstone Industries, Inc., 788 F. 2d, at 155 (noting that “in many cases the defendants are the [copyright] holders”).
More importantly, the policies served by the Copyright Act are more complex, more measured, than simply maximizing the number of meritorious suits for copyright infringement. The Constitution grants to Congress the power “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8. We have often recognized the monopoly privileges that Congress has authorized, while “intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward,” are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U. S. 417, 429 (1984). For example, in Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U. S. 151, 156 (1975), we discussed the policies underlying the 1909 Copyright Act as follows:
“The limited scope of the copyright holder’s statutory monopoly... reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an ‘author’s’ creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.” (Footnotes omitted.)
We reiterated this theme in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U. S. 340, 349-350 (1991), where we said:
“The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’ To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.” (Citations omitted.)
Because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. To that end, defendants who seek to advance a variety of meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious claims of infringement. In the case before us, the successful defense of “The Old Man Down the Road” increased public exposure to a musical work that could, as a result, lead to further creative pieces. Thus a successful defense of a copyright infringement action may further the policies of the Copyright Act every bit as much as a successful prosecution of an infringement claim by the holder of a copyright.
Respondent finally urges that the legislative history supports the dual standard, relying on the principle of ratification. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580 (1978) (“Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute-and to adopt that interpretation when it re-enacts a statute without change...”). Respondent surveys the great number of lower court cases interpreting the identical provision in the 1909 Act, 17 U. S. C. § 116 (1976 ed.), and asserts that “it was firmly established” that prevailing defendants should be awarded attorney’s fees only where the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous or brought with a vexatious purpose. Brief for Respondent 40-45. Furthermore, respondent claims that Congress was aware of this construction of former §116 because of two copyright studies submitted to Congress when it was studying revisions to the Act. W. Strauss, Damage Provisions of the Copyright Law, Study No. 22 (hereinafter Strauss Study), and R. Brown, Operation of the Damage Provisions of the Copyright Law: An Exploratory Study, Study No. 23 (hereinafter Brown Study), Studies Prepared for Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. Judiciary Comm. Print 1960).
Before turning to the import of the two studies and the cases decided under the 1909 Act, we summarize briefly the factual background of Lorillard, whence comes the statement upon which respondent relies. There the question was whether there was a right to jury trial in an action for lost wages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In enacting that statute, Congress provided, inter alia, that the provisions of the ADEA were to be “enforced in accordance with the ‘powers, remedies and procedures’ ” of specified sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 81 Stat. 604, 29 U. S. C. § 626(b). Lorillard, 434 U. S., at 580. In the three decided cases which had treated the right to jury trial under the FLSA, each court had decided that there was such a right. In enacting the ADEA, “Congress exhibited both a detailed knowledge of the FLSA provisions and their judicial interpretation and a willingness to depart from those provisions regarded as undesirable or inappropriate for incorporation.” Id., at 581.
Here, by contrast, the Strauss and Brown Studies deal only briefly with the provision for the award of attorney’s fees. In the Strauss Study, the limited discussion begins with a quote to A. Weil, American Copyright Law 530-531 (1917), for an explanation of the “discretionary awarding of attorney’s fees”:
“ ‘The amount of money frequently involved in copyright letigation [sic], especially on the part of the defendant is trifling. The expense of any letigation [sic] is considerable. Unless, therefore, some provision is made for financial protection to a litigant, if successful, it may not pay a party to defend rights, even if valid, a situation opposed to justice.... It is increasingly recognized that the person who forces another to engage counsel to vindicate, or defend, a right should bear the expense of such engagement and not his successful opponent....’” Strauss Study 31.
The study then notes that the pending bills contemplate no change in the attorney’s fees provision and concludes with the simple statement “[t]he cases indicate that this discretion has been judiciously exercised by the courts.” Ibid. This limited discussion of attorney’s fees surely does not constitute an endorsement of a dual standard.
The Brown Study was intended as a supplement to the Strauss Study and, inter alia, provides information from a survey distributed to practitioners about the practical workings of the 1909 Copyright Act. It also does not endorse a standard of treating prevailing plaintiffs and defendants differently. At one point, the study notes that “courts do not usually make an allowance- at all if an unsuccessful plaintiff’s claim was not ‘synthetic, capricious or otherwise unreasonable,’ or if the losing defendant raised real issues of fact or law.” Brown Study 85.
Our review of the prior case law itself leads us to conclude that there was no settled “dual standard” interpretation of former § 116 about which Congress could have been aware. We note initially that at least one reported case stated no reason in awarding attorney’s fees to successful defendants. See, e.g., Marks v. Leo Feist, Inc., 8 F. 2d 460, 461 (CA2 1925) (noting that the Copyright Act gave courts “absolute discretion,” the court awarded attorney’s fees to prevailing defendant after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed suit). More importantly, while it appears that the majority of lower courts exercised their discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing defendants based on a finding of frivolousness or bad faith, not all courts expressly described the test in those terms. In fact, only one pre-1976 case expressly endorsed a dual standard. Breffort v. I Had a Ball Co., 271 F. Supp. 623 (SDNY 1967). This is hardly the sort of uniform construction that Congress might have endorsed.
In summary, neither of the two studies presented to Congress, nor the cases referred to by the studies, support respondent’s view that there was a settled construction in favor of the “dual standard” under § 116 of the 1909 Copyright Act.
We thus reject each of respondent’s three arguments in support of the dual standard. We now turn to petitioner’s argument that §505 was intended to adopt the “British Rule.” Petitioner argues that, consistent with the neutral language of §505, both prevailing plaintiffs and defendants should be awarded attorney’s fees as a matter of course, absent exceptional circumstances. For two reasons we reject this argument for the British Rule.
First, just as the plain language of § 505 supports petitioner’s claim for disapproving the dual standard, it cuts against him in arguing for the British Rule. The statute says that “the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.” The word “may” clearly connotes discretion. The automatic awarding of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party would pretermit the exercise of that discretion.
Second, we are mindful that Congress legislates against the strong background of the American Rule. Unlike Britain where counsel fees are regularly awarded to the prevailing party, it is the general rule in this country that unless Congress provides otherwise, parties are to bear their own attorney’s fees. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247-262 (1975) (tracing the origins and development of the American Rule); Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U. S., at 758. While § 505 is one situation in which Congress has modified the American Rule to allow an award of attorney’s fees in the court’s discretion, we find it impossible to believe that Congress, without more, intended to adopt the British Rule. Such a bold departure from traditional practice would have surely drawn more explicit statutory language and legislative comment. Cf. Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U. S. 779, 783 (1952) (“Statutes which invade the common law... are to be read with a presumption favoring the retention of long-established and familiar principles, except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident”). Not surprisingly, no court has held that § 505 (or its predecessor statute) adopted the British Rule.
Thus we reject both the “dual standard” adopted by several of the Courts of Appeals and petitioner’s claim that § 505 enacted the British Rule for automatic recovery of attorney’s fees by the prevailing party. Prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants are to be treated alike, but attorney’s fees are to be awarded to prevailing parties only as a matter of the court’s discretion. “There is no precise rule or formula for making these determinations,” but instead equitable discretion should be exercised “in light of the considerations we have identified.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424, 436-437 (1983). Because the Court of Appeals erroneously held petitioner, the prevailing defendant, to a more stringent standard than that applicable to a prevailing plaintiff, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The section provides in full: “In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.” 17 U. S. C. §505.
Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR), recently inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, has been recognized as one of the greatest American rock and roll groups of all time. With Fogerty as its leader, CCR developed a distinctive style of music, dubbed “swamp rock” by the media due to its southern country and blues feel. Brief for Petitioner 4-5; see also Questions and Answers with John Fogerty, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 12, 1993, section F, p. 1, col. 2.
Pursuant to an agreement between Fogerty and the Warner defendants, Fogerty indemnified and reimbursed the Warner defendants for their attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending the copyright infringement action. Brief for Petitioner 4, n. 3'.
In addition to the copyright infringement claim, Fantasy asserted state law and Lanham Act claims. These claims were voluntarily dismissed before trial. Petitioner also asserted various counterclaims against Fantasy, which were ultimately dismissed on Fantasy’s motion for summary judgment. These related claims and counterclaims are not before this Court. ;
In making its findings, the District Court stated: “Although the facts of this case did not present the textbook scenario of copyright infringement, the Court has held that Fogerty could indeed be held liable for copyright infringement even where he also wrote the song allegedly infringed.... Nor does Fantasy’s ‘knowledge of Fogerty’s creativity’ mean that this suit was brought in bad faith, where a finding of subconscious copying would have supported Fantasy’s infringement claim.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-31 (citation omitted).
By predicating an award of attorney’s fees to prevailing defendants on a showing of bad faith or frivolousness on the part of plaintiffs, the “dual” standard makes it more difficult for prevailing defendants to secure awards of attorney’s fees than prevailing plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit has explained that prevailing plaintiffs, on the other hand, should generally receive such awards absent special circumstances such as “the presence of a complex or novel issue of law that the defendant litigates vigorously and in good faith....” McCulloch v. Albert E. Price, Inc., 823 F. 2d 316, 323 (1987). In the instant case, the Court of Appeals explained: “The purpose of [the dual standard] rule is to avoid chilling a copyright holder’s incentive to sue on colorable claims, and thereby to give full effect to the broad protection for copyrights intended by the Copyright Act.” 984 F. 2d, at 1532.
At oral argument, counsel for respondent voiced his dissatisfaction with the terms “dual” and “evenhanded” used to describe the differing rules in the Circuits. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31. Counsel objected to the implication from the terms — that the Ninth Circuit’s dual standard was somehow not evenhanded or fair. While this point may be well taken in a rhetorical sense, we will continue to use the terms as commonly used by the lower courts for the sake of convenience.
In addition to the Ninth Circuit, the Second, Seventh, and District of Columbia Circuits have adopted a “dual” standard of awarding attorney’s fees whereby a greater burden is placed upon prevailing defendants than prevailing plaintiffs. See, e. g., Diamond v. Am-Law Publishing Corp., 745 F. 2d 142, 148-149 (CA2 1984); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 925 F. 2d 1010, 1022 (CA7), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 861 (1991); Reader’s Digest Assn., Inc. v. Conservative Digest, Inc., 821 F 2d 800, 809 (CADC 1987). On the other hand, the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have been identified as following an “evenhanded” approach similar to that of the Third Circuit. See, e. g., Sherry Manufacturing Co. v. Towel King of Florida, Inc., 822 F. 2d 1031, 1034-1035, n. 3 (CA11 1987); Cohen v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 617 F. Supp. 619, 620-623 (ED Va. 1985), aff’d on other grounds, 788 F. 2d 247 (CA4 1986).
Additionally, we note that Congress, in enacting §505 of the 1976 Copyright Act, could not have been aware of the Christiansburg dual standard as Christiansburg was not decided until 1978.
For the former provision under the Copyright Act of 1909, see 17 U.S. C. §116 (1976 ed.).
The 1976 Copyright Act did change, however, the standard for awarding costs to the prevailing party. The 1909 Act provided.a mandatory rule that “full costs shall be allowed.” 17 U. S. C. § 116 (1976 ed.) (emphasis added). The 1976 Act changed the rule from a mandatory one to one of discretion. As the 1909 Act indicates, Congress clearly knows how to use mandatory language when it so desires. That Congress did not amend the neutral language of the 1909 rule respecting attorney’s fees lends further support to the plain language of § 505 — district courts are to use their discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party.
We note that the federal fee-shifting statutes in the patent and trademark fields, which are more closely related to that of copyright, support a party-neutral approach. Those statutes contain language similar to that of § 505, with the added proviso that fees are only to be awarded in “exceptional cases.” 35 U. S. C. § 285 (patent) (“The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party”); 15 U. S. C. § 1117 (trademark) (same). Consistent with the party-neutral language, courts have generally awarded attorney’s fees in an evenhanded manner based on the same criteria. For patent, see, e. g., Eltech Systems Corp. v. PPG Industries, Inc., 903 F. 2d 805, 811 (CA Fed. 1990) (“[T]here is and should be no difference in the standards applicable to patentees and. infringers who engage in bad faith litigation”). For trademark, see, e. g., Motown Productions, Inc. v. Cacomm, Inc., 849 F. 2d 781, 786 (CA2 1988) (exceptional circumstances include cases in which losing party prosecuted or defended action in bad faith); but see Scotch Whisky Assn. v. Majestic Distilling Co., 958 F. 2d 594, 599 (CA4) (finding in the legislative history that prevailing defendants are to be treated more favorably than prevailing plaintiffs), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 862 (1992).
Respondent points to four important interests allegedly advanced by the dual standard: (1) it promotes the vigorous enforcement of the Copyright Act; (2) it distinguishes between the wrongdoers and the blameless; (3) it enhances the predictability and certainty in copyrights by providing a relatively certain benchmark for the award of attorney’s fees; and (4) it affords copyright defendants sufficient incentives to litigate their defenses.
In a footnote, the Strauss Study lists several cases exemplifying the courts’ use of discretion. None of these cases explicitly require a dual standard of awarding attorney’s fees, but instead offer various reasons for awarding or not awarding attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Cases cited by the study involving prevailing defendants: Overman v. Loesser, 205 F. 2d 521, 524 (CA9 1953) (denying counsel fees because there was “no indication that the appeal was pursued in bad faith” and “the principal question [was] a complex question of law”); Official Aviation Guide Co. v. American Aviation Associates, 162 F. 2d 541, 543 (CA7 1947) (denying attorney’s fee where “[t]he instant case was hard fought and prosecuted in good faith, and... presented a complex problem in law”); Rosen v. Lowe’s Inc., 162 F. 2d 785 (CA2 1947) (defendant prevailed; no discussion of attorney’s fees); Advertisers Exchange, Inc. v. Anderson, 144 F. 2d 907 (CA8 1944) (denying attorney’s fee without comment in case involving defective copyright notice); Lewys v. O’Neill, 49 F. 2d 603, 618 (SDNY 1931) (awarding fees where plaintiff’s case was “wholly synthetic”); Metro Associated Services, Inc. v. Webster City Graphic, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 224 (ND Iowa 1953) (denying attorney’s fee without explanation where plaintiff filed defective copyright); Lowenfels v. Nathan, 2 F. Supp. 73, 80 (SDNY 1932) (awarding fees where “[t]he most earnest advocate of the plaintiff’s side... could not... possibly find” any plagiarism by the defendant); Jerome v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 71F. Supp. 914, 915 (SDNY 1946) (denying fee where court “[could] very well understand how plaintiff was driven to some litigation, although the theory of [the] action... was not supported by the proof”), 7 F. R. D. 190 (SDNY 1947), aff’d, 165 F. 2d 784 (CA2 1948).
Cases cited by the study involving prevailing plaintiffs: Advertisers Exchange, Inc. v. Hinkley, 199 F. 2d 313, 316 (CA8 1952) (denying an attorney’s fee where plaintiff’s counsel attempted to inflate and exaggerate plaintiff’s claim), cert. denied, 344 U. S. 921 (1953); Ziegelheim v. Flohr, 119 F Supp. 324, 329 (EDNY 1954) (court denied attorney’s fee “since it appears to have... been a fairly common practice for publishers of [prayer books] to copy rather freely from each other, and since much of plaintiff’s book was in the public domain, and defendant honestly, but mistakenly, believed that plaintiff was illegally attempting to copyright and monopolize the printing of ancient prayers”); Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Borst Music Pub. Co., 110 F. Supp. 913 (NJ 1953) (court noted only that it would not award attorney’s fee because such award is discretionary); Stein v. Rosenthal, 103 F. Supp. 227, 232 (SD Cal. 1952) (awarding attorney’s fees of $3,500 as an amount “reasonably necessary to redress the infringement of plaintiffs’ copyright”); Northern Music Corp. v. King Record Distributing Co., 105 F. Supp. 393, 401 (SDNY 1952) (noting that prevailing plaintiff entitled to receive a reasonable attorney’s fee to be assessed by the court); White v. Kimmell, 94 F. Supp. 502, 511 (SD Cal. 1950) (copyright holder, who was a successful defendant in a declaratory judgment action, was awarded costs but denied attorney’s fee award without elaboration); M. Witmark & Sons v. Pastime Amusement Co., 298 F. 470, 482-483 (EDSC 1924) (court awarded a moderate attorney’s fee after noting that foil allowance “would bear too heavily upon the defendant, in view of the character of the infringement and the circumstances surrounding it; but, if no fee should be allowed at all in such cases, it would probably result in many cases in a practical denial of the rights of copyright owners”).
The study also cited to Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co. v. Buck, 283 U. S. 202 (1931), a case that did not involve attorney’s fees, but instead addressed the damages provision of § 25 of the 1909 Act, 35 Stat. 1081.
To this extent, the Brown Study focuses more on the effect that the prospect of an award of attorney’s fees has on decisions to litigate or to settle cases. Based on its interview sources, the study concluded that the likelihood of getting a fee award is so problematic that “it is not a factor” that goes into the decision to settle or litigate. Brown Study 85. The report also noted that its observations about attorney’s fees “are not intended as an exhaustive treatment of the subject” and that “[attorney’s fees’] deterrent effect on ill-founded litigation, whether by plaintiffs or defendants, is outside the scope of this inquiry.” Id., at 85-86.
Citing to Cloth v. Hyman, 146 F. Supp. 185, 193 (SDNY 1956) (it is proper to award fees to prevailing defendant when copyright action is brought in bad faith, with a motive to “vex and harass the defendant,” or where plaintiff’s claim utterly lacks merit). The Brown Study also included cites to Eisenschiml v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 246 F. 2d 598, 604 (CA7) (reversing attorney’s fee award to prevailing defendant as an abuse of discretion where plaintiff’s claim was not entirely without merit and involved a close question of law), cert. denied, 355 U. S. 907 (1957); Marks v. Leo Feist, Inc., 8 F. 2d 460, 461 (CA2 1925) (awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing defendant after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed suit).
See, e. g., Shroeder v. William Morrow & Co., 421 F. Supp. 372, 378 (ND Ill. 1976) (refusing to award prevailing defendant an attorney’s fee because plaintiff’s action was “prosecuted in good faith and with a reasonable likelihood of success”), rev’d on other grounds, 566 F. 2d 3 (CA7 1977); Kinelow Publishing Co. v. Photography In Business, Inc., 270 F. Supp. 851, 855 (SDNY 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:
|
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.
Per Curiam.
The judgment below is affirmed on the merits. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The cases are remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds, should that become necessary.
Mr. Justice Clark would affirm on the merits on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587.
Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Oklahoma’s system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended in 1972, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. IV), to regulate the discharge into the Nation’s waterways of nuclear waste materials subject to regulation by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and its successors under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). 68 Stat. 919, as amended, 42 TJ. S. C. §2011 et seq. In statutory terms, the question is whether these nuclear materials are “pollutants” within the meaning of the FWPCA.
I
Respondents are Colorado-based organizations and Colorado residents who claim potential harm from the discharge of radioactive effluents from two nuclear plants — the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station and the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons components plant. These facilities are operated in conformity with radioactive effluent standards imposed by the AEC pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act. The dispute in this case arises because the EPA has disclaimed any authority under the FWPCA to set standards of its own to govern the discharge of radioactive materials subject to regulation under the AEA. Respondents, taking issue with the EPA’s disclaimer of authority, brought this suit against petitioners, the EPA and its Administrator, under § 505 of the FWPCA, 33 TJ. S. C. § 1365 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), which authorizes “citizen suits” against the Administrator for failure to perform nondiscretionary duties under the FWPCA. They sought a declaration that the definition of a “pollutant” under the FWPCA encompasses all radioactive materials, including those regulated under the terms of the AEA, and an injunction directing the EPA and its Administrator to regulate the discharge of all such radioactive materials.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado held that the AEC had exclusive authority to regulate discharges of radioactive materials covered by the AEA. 373 F. Supp. 991 (1974). The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the FWPCA requires the EPA to regulate discharges into the Nation’s waters of all radioactive materials, including those covered by the AEA. 507 F. 2d 743 (1974). Because of the importance of the issue involved in this case, we granted certiorari. 421 U. S. 998 (1975). We now reverse.
II
Since 1946, when the first Atomic Energy Act was passed, 60 Stat. 755, the Federal Government has exercised control over the production and use of atomic energy through the AEC — replaced since the commencement of this litigation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). Under the AEA, private parties are permitted to engage in the production of atomic energy for industrial or commercial purposes, but only in accordance with licenses issued by the AEC (NRC) in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 42 U. S. C. § 2133.
The comprehensive regulatory scheme created by the AEA embraces the production, possession, and use of three types of radioactive materials — source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material. In carrying out its regulatory duties under the AEA, the AEC is authorized to establish “such standards... as [it] may deem necessary or desirable... to protect health or to minimize danger to life or property.” 42 U. S. C. § 2201 (b). See also 42 U. S. C. §§ 2073 (b), (e), 2093 (b), 2111, 2133 (a), (d), 2134 (d). Pursuant to this authority, the AEC (NRC) has established by regulation maximum permissible releases of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials into the environment by licensees. 10 CFR § 20.106 and App. B, Table II (1976). The regulations further provide that licensees should, in addition to complying with the established limits, “make every reasonable effort to maintain... releases of radioactive materials in effluents... as low as is reasonably achievable.” 10 CFR § 20.1 (c) (1976). Similarly, the regulations require that nuclear facilities be designed to keep levels of radioactive material in effluents “as low as is reasonably achievable.” 10 CFR § 50.34a (1976). See also 10 CFR §§ 50.36a, 50.57 (a) (3), (6) (1976).
The FWPCA established a regulatory program to control and abate water pollution, stating as its ultimate objective the elimination of all discharges of “pollutants” into the navigable waters by 1985. In furtherance of this objective, the FWPCA calls for the achievement of effluent limitations that require applications of the “best practicable control technology currently available” by July 1, 1977, and the “best available technology economically achievable” by July 1, 1983. 33 U. S. C. § 1311 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. IY). These effluent limitations are enforced through a permit program. The discharge of “pollutants” into water is unlawful without a permit issued by the Administrator of the EPA or, if a State has developed a program that complies with the FWPCA, by the State. 33 U. S. C. §§ 1311 (a), 1342 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
The term “pollutant” is defined by the FWPCA to include, inter alia, “radioactive materials.” But when the Administrator of the EPA adopted regulations governing the permit program, 40 CFR, pt. 125 (1975), he specifically excluded source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials — those covered by the AEA — from the program upon his understanding of the relevant legislative history of the FWPCA:
“The legislative history of the Act reflects that the term ‘radioactive materials’ as included within the definition of ‘pollutant’ in section 502 of the Act covers only radioactive materials which are not encompassed in the definition of source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulated pursuant to the latter Act. Examples of radioactive materials not covered by the Atomic Energy Act and, therefore, included within the term ‘pollutant’ are radium and accelerator produced isotopes.” 40 CFR § 125.1 (y) (1975) (citations omitted).
It was the Administrator’s exclusion of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials from the permit program, and consequent refusal to regulate them, that precipitated the instant lawsuit. The question we are presented with, then, is whether source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials are “pollutants” within the meaning of the FWPCA.
Ill
The Court of Appeals resolved the question exclusively by reference to the language of the statute. It observed that the FWPCA defines “pollution” as “the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water.” 33 U. S. C. § 1362 (19) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). And it noted that the reference to “radioactive materials” in the definition of “pollutant” was without express qualification or exception, despite the fact that the overall definition of “pollutant” does contain two explicit exceptions. The court concluded from this analysis of the language that by the reference to “radioactive materials” Congress meant all radioactive materials. The court explained:
“In our view, then, the statute is plain and unambiguous and should be given its obvious meaning. Such being the case,... we need not here concern ourselves with the legislative history of the 1972 Amendments. In this regard we would note parenthetically that in our view the legislative history of the 1972 Amendments is conflicting and inconclusive. Be that as it may, in the case before us there is no need to address ourselves to the ofttimes difficult task of ascertaining legislative intent through legislative history. Here, the legislative intent is clearly manifested in the language of the statute itself, and we need not resort to legislative history.” 507 F. 2d, at 748 (citations omitted).
To the extent that the Court of Appeals excluded reference to the legislative history of the FWPCA in discerning its meaning, the court was in error. As we have noted before: “When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no ‘rule of law' which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on ‘superficial examination.’ ” United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, 543-544 (1940) (footnotes omitted). See Cass v. United States, 417 U. S. 72, 77-79 (1974). See generally Murphy, Old Maxims Never Die: The “Plain-Meaning Rule” and Statutory Interpretation in the “Modern” Federal Courts, 75 Col. L. Rev. 1299 (1975). In this case, as we shall see, the legislative history sheds considerable light on the question before the Court.
Before turning to the various legislative materials, however, we pause to consider an additional argument asserted by respondents on the basis of the language of the statute. Section 1311 (f), they note, provides as follows:
“Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter it shall be unlawful to discharge any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent or high-level radioactive waste into the navigable waters.” 33 U. S. C. § 1311 (f) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
Respondents suggest that it would be inconsistent for Congress in one section of the FWPCA to prohibit the discharge of “radiological warfare agents” and “high-level radioactive waste,” both of which are subject to AEA regulation, while at the same time exempting AEA-regulated materials from the FWPCA’s permit program. We see no inconsistency. That Congress has chosen to ban completely the discharge of certain high-level radioactive material regulated under the AEA does not, by itself, indicate whether Congress wanted the discharge of other radioactive material regulated under the AEA to be subject to the FWPCA’s permit program. Respondents argue further, however, that Congress’ use of the phrase “ [n] otwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter” before the ban on the discharge of high-level radioactive waste suggests that the discharge of such material would otherwise be subject to the FWPCA’s permit program. This argument is not entirely without logical appeal, but we do not consider it determinative. Like the more general argument based on the definition of a “pollutant” as including “radioactive materials,” this argument must be assessed against the background of the relevant legislative history.
IV
The legislative history of the FWPCA speaks with force to the question whether source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials are “pollutants” subject to the Act’s permit program. The House Committee Report was quite explicit on the subject:
“The term ‘pollutant’ as defined in the bill includes ‘radioactive materials.’ These materials are those not encompassed in the definition of source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulated pursuant to that Act. ‘Radioactive materials’ encompassed by this bill are those beyond the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission. Examples of radioactive material not covered by the Atomic Energy Act, and, therefore, included within the term ‘pollutant,’ are radium and accelerator produced isotopes.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-911, p. 131 (1972), 1 Leg. Hist. 818 (emphasis added).
The definition of “pollutant” in the House version of the bill, H. R. 11896, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., § 502 (6) (1972), 1 Leg. Hist. 1068, contained the same broad reference to “radioactive materials” as did the definition in the Senate bill, S. 2770, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., § 502 (f) (1971), 2 Leg. Hist. 1697, and the bill ultimately enacted as the FWPCA; for our purposes the definitions are identical. Moreover, the House version of the bill contained the provision now codified as § 1311 (f), banning the discharge of radiological warfare agents and high-level radioactive waste “[notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act.” H. R. 11896, supra, § 301 (e), 1 Leg. Hist. 965. Thus, the House Committee, describing the import of the precise statutory language with which we are concerned, cautioned that the definition of “pollutant” did not include those radioactive materials subject to regulation under the AEA.
Respondents claim to find in the Senate Committee Report an indication that the statutory definition of “pollutant” embraces radioactive materials subject to AEA regulation. Section 306 of the Senate bill, which corresponds to 33 U. S. C. § 1316 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), required that the EPA Administrator establish “standards of performance” with respect to the discharge of pollutants from specified categories of sources, to be revised from time to time by the Administrator. The Senate Committee Report noted that nuclear fuels processing plants were not included, because the EPA did not then have “the technical capability to establish controls for such plants.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 59 (1971), 2 Leg. Hist. 1477. The Report then observed that the Committee “expects that EPA will develop the capability,” and continued:
“The Bureau of Radiological Health, which was transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency, should have the capacity to determine those levels of control which can be achieved for nuclear fuels processing plants. If they do not; such a capability should be developed and this particular source should be added to the list of new sources as soon as possible.” Ibid.
Petitioners assert that this statement by the Committee has no bearing on the question before the Court. The statement, petitioners suggest, reflects no more than a recognition, shared by them, that the plants referred to were not intended to be wholly excluded from the reach of the FWPCA — a recognition that in their view means that the EPA can control the discharge from such plants of polluting materials other than source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials. In short, petitioners contend that the statement sheds no light on the question whether source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials are pollutants under the FWPCA.
We agree with the petitioners that the Senate Committee statement is addressed to the inclusion of nuclear fuels processing plants in the category of sources subject to the EPA’s control, not to the inclusion of any particular materials within the definition of “pollutant.” It is true that the reference to the development of control levels by the Bureau of Radiological Health does permit the inference that the Committee was contemplating controls over the discharge of AEA-regulated radioactive materials. Still, we are not prepared to attribute greater significance to this inference than to the more explicit statement contained in the House Committee Report; a statement that, as we shall see, is amply supported by the discussion on the floors of the House and the Senate.
A colloquy on the Senate floor between Senator Pas-tore, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and Senator Muskie, the FWPCA's primary author, provides a strong indication that Congress did not intend the FWPCA to alter the AEC’s control over the discharge of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials. Senator Pastore, referring to the need to define what materials are “subject to control requirements” under the FWPCA, noted that the definition of “pollutant” included the words “radioactive materials.” 2 Leg. Hist. 1265. The following exchange then took place:
“MR. PASTORE....
“My question is this: Does this measure that has been reported by the committee in any way affect the existing law, that is, the existing Atomic Energy Act of 1954, insofar as the regulatory powers of the AEC are concerned with reference to radioactive material?
“MR. MUSKIE. It does not; and it is not the intent of this act to affect the 1954 legislation.
“MR. PASTORE. In other words, this bill does not change that feature of the Atomic Energy Act in any regard?
“MR. MUSKIE. That is correct.
“MR. PASTORE. I thank the Senator.
“MR. MUSKIE. May I say in addition, that legislation dealing with the setting of effluent limitations as they involve nuclear powerplants is now pending in the courts. The Senator is aware of that litigation.
“For example, a recent decision of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in the case of Northern States Power and Light versus Minnesota, raises the issue. I would like to point out that the committee considered speaking specifically to that decision, but chose to remain silent so as not to prejudice the decision or any appeal from it.
“MR. PASTORE. Yes. As a matter of fact, that decision held that the Federal Government did preempt in this field under existing law. That is the opinion, and we hope this legislation does not change that opinion in any way, and does not affect existing law. That is all I am concerned with.
“MR. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct in his evaluation of the legislation on that point.” Id., at 1265-1266.
Respondents contend that this colloquy “merely reiterates that the FWPCA does not. alter the regulatory authority of the AEC” over source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials. Brief for Respondents 40-41. The exchange, they assert, says nothing about the EPA’s authority to regulate the same materials. The discussion is consistent, they claim, with their position that the AEC must defer to the EPA in the setting of effluent limitations for AEA-regulated materials — that, for example, NRC licenses must conform to permits issued under the FWPCA. We disagree.
The thrust of Senator Muskie's assurances that the FWPCA would not “in any way affect” the regulatory powers of the AEC was, we think, that the AEC was to retain full authority to regulate the materials covered by the AEA, unaltered by the exercise of regulatory authority by any agency under the FWPCA. This conclusion is reinforced by Senator Muskie’s reference to the case of Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F. 2d 1143 (CA8 1971). In that case, which was subsequently affirmed summarily by this Court, 405 U. S. 1035 (1972), the Eighth Circuit had held that the AEA created a pervasive regulatory scheme, vesting exclusive authority to regulate the discharge of radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants in the AEC, and pre-empting the States from regulating such discharges. The absence of any room for a state role under the AEA in setting limits on radioactive discharges from nuclear power plants stands in sharp contrast to the scheme created by the FWPCA, which envisions the development of state permit programs, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1342 (b), (c) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), and allows the States to adopt effluent limitations more stringent than those required or established under the FWPCA. 33 U. S. C. § 1370 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). See also 33 U. S. C. §§ 1311 (b)(1)(C), 1314 (b), 13Í6 (c), 1341(a)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Senator Muskie’s specific assurance to Senator Pastore that the FWPCA would not affect existing law as interpreted in Northern States can only be viewed, we think, as an indication that the exclusive regulatory scheme created by the AEA for source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials was to remain unaltered.
In the course of the House’s consideration of the FWPCA, an unsuccessful attempt was made to alter the AEA’s scheme for regulating the discharge of the radioactive materials involved in this case. Representative Wolff proposed to amend what is now 33 U. S. C. § 1370 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), which gives States the authority to set more stringent limits on the discharge of pollutants, by adding a paragraph giving the States ■the authority to regulate the discharge of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants. The debate on that amendment and its defeat by a 3-to-l vote provide solid support for the conclusion that the FWPCA’s grant of regulatory authority to the EPA and the States did not encompass the control of AEA-regulated materials.
The Wolff amendment, according to its author, would “give the States a voice in deciding what kinds and amounts of such radioactive wastes may be discharged into their waters.” 1 Leg. Hist. 544, In explaining the need for such an amendment, Representative Wolff noted that the time had come “to seriously consider standards more stringent than those promulgated by the AEC.'/ Id., at 545. Representative Frenzel, a cosponsor of the amendment, pictured it as an attempt to alter the result in the Northern States case. The AEC, he explained, could not be expected to protect the health and safety of the public as effectively as the States, because “the AEC has a dual mission — that of promotion as well as safety.” 1 Leg. Hist. 548.
The opponents of the Wolff Amendment voiced strong opposition to the transfer of the AEC’s regulatory authority to the States or to the EPA. Representative Stanton, a Member of the House Committee on Public Works, which reported the House bill, stated:
“The amendment presents the House with a very complex and difficult proposition. It proposes to take authority for the setting of pollution control standards from the AEC and places it in the hands of EPA. For normal operations involving pollution, that control properly belongs under EPA. But atomic energy is a peculiar field. To date, the operation of the atomic energy program has been under the control of the Commission itself. Eventually, such control will be delegated to the States as more and more knowledgeable people at the State level become involved in the atomic energy program. That time, however, has not yet arrived. Until we reach that stage it is obvious that the control of which we speak should remain with the Atomic Energy Commission itself, as^íie committee points out on page 131 of House Report 92-911 [quoted supra, at 11], which accompanies this bill. For this reason, I would oppose the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague.” Id., at 554-555.
Representative Price, Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, argued against the amendment as follows:
“The bill as reported establishes a program of effluent limitations and.standards, and section 510 clearly provides that the States may set more restrictive standards should they so desire. The proposed amendment is aimed at two so-called pollutants— radioactive materials and thermal discharges — and seeks to collaterally amend any statute enacted by the Congress relative to them without any specific reference to the statutes that might be affected. As to radioactive materials, the target of the amendment is obvious. It seeks to reverse the decisions of the courts which have held that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 preempted to the Federal Government, acting through the Atomic Energy Commission, the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate most radioactive materials. Clearly, if such is the will of the House, it should be undertaken only after a thorough examination of the impact of such a decision and it should be done directly by amending the statute involved — the Atomic Energy Act — not collaterally through this legislation. If this amendment had been proposed as a piece of original legislation, it would have been referred to the appropriate committee for hearings and evaluation of all the pertinent factors involved in such a decision. I could go on with the explanation of those factors, but this is not the time nor the place for such a consideration in the first instance. This bill is not the appropriate vehicle for amending a major piece of legislation, thoroughly considered in committee and by the Congress, which established at the direction of the Congress a thorough and pervasive regulatory program relative to radioactive materials.” Id., at 556.
Representative McCormack, a Member of the House Committee on Public Works and Chairman of the House Science and Astronautics Committee’s Task Force on Energy Research and Development, urged the amendment’s defeat in similar terms. After noting the inadvisability of “throwing away” the AEC’s “meticulous work” in the area of safety in favor of state regulation, id., at 550, he concluded:
“ [I] t is obvious from the report by the House Committee on Public Works for this bill, and from the committee report from the other body that this bill does not impact directly upon the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This bill applies only to radioactive materials not covered by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and, as such, the amendment is not relevant to this bill at all.” Id., at 551.
Respondents urge that the Wolff amendment was addressed only to the question of the States’ regulatory authority, and that its defeat did not reflect any intent to foreclose regulation of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials by the EPA. We do not agree that the House’s consideration of the Wolff amendment leaves room for EPA regulation. Several of the opponents of the amendment were quite explicit in their reliance upon the House Committee Report’s statement that radioactive materials subject to AEA regulation were excluded from the coverage of the FWPCA. Neither Representative Wolff nor Representative Frenzel took issue with that interpretation in the course of the debate on their amendment, and indeed it is arguable that their amendment was premised on the assumption that source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials were wholly beyond the scope of the FWPCA. If these materials were covered by the Act — that is, if they were “pollutants” — the amendment was wholly superfluous, for the unamended provision that is now 33 U. S. C. § 1370 (1970 ed., Supp. IV) would permit the States to regulate their discharge. But regardless of the underlying assumptions of the sponsors of the Wolff amendment, the interpretation respondents would place upon its defeat is unacceptable. As respondents would have it, the House expressed an intent to permit EPA regulation of the materials in question, but to preclude state regulation of the same materials under the FWPCA. That result could find no basis in the language of the Act. In our view, then, the House’s consideration and rejection of the Wolff amendment offers additional support for the interpretation stated in the House Committee Report that source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials are beyond the reach of the FWPCA.
The House’s rather explicit statement of intent to exclude AEA-regulated materials from the FWPCA was unchallenged by the Conference Committee, which simply retained the same reference to “radioactive materials” contained in both the House and Senate bills. S. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1236, p. 144 (1972), 1 Leg. Hist. 327. Representative Harsha, a ranking member of the Conference Committee, explained the import of the Conference Committee action as follows:
“The.conference report does not change the original intent as it was made clear in the colloquy between Senators Muskie and Pastore in the course of the debate in the other body. I also note that an amendment to H. R. 11896 was offered on March 28, 1972, which would have overturned the Northern States Power against Minnesota case.
“The distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Holifield) spoke in opposition to the amendment and pointed out the necessity of not changing the careful division of authority between the States and the Federal Government over nuclear materials and facilities as enunciated in the Northern States case. The amendment was defeated by a 3-to-l vote of the House.
“I can say to the gentleman from Illinois that the managers in no way detracted from the intent of the language in H. R. 11896. I also note that the Committee on Public Works in its report on H. R. 11896 stated on page 131 that the term ‘pollutant’ as defined in the bill includes ‘radioactive materials.’ These materials are not those encompassed in the definition of source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulated pursuant to that act. ‘Radioactive materials’ encompassed by this bill are those beyond the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission. Examples of radioactive materials not covered by the Atomic Energy Act, and, therefore, included within the term ‘pollutant’ are radium and accelerator produced isotopes. This language adequately reflects the intent of the managers of the conference report.” Id., at 226-227.
See also id., at 229 (remarks of Rep. Jones). With no one expressing a different view of the Conference action, the House proceeded to agree to the Conference Report. Id., at 276.
Y
If it was not clear at the outset, we think it abundantly clear after a review of the legislative materials that reliance on the “plain meaning” of the words “radioactive materials” contained in the definition of “pollutant” in the FWPCA contributes little to our understanding of whether Congress intended the Act to encompass the regulation of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials. To have included these materials under the FWPCA would have marked a significant alteration of the pervasive regulatory scheme embodied in the AEA. Far from containing the clear indication of legislative intent that we might expect before recognizing such a change in policy, cf. United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U. S. 164, 168-169 (1976), the legislative history reflects, on balance, an intention to preserve the pre-existing regulatory plan.
We conclude, therefore, that the “pollutants” subject to regulation under the FWPCA do not include source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials, and that the EPA Administrator has acted in accordance with his statutory mandate in declining to regulate the discharge of such materials. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1233, 42 U. S. C. §5801 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. IV), the licensing and related regulatory functions of the AEC were transferred to the NRC; the ERDA assumed responsibility for the operation of Government nuclear research and production facilities. 42 U. S. C. §§ 5841 (f), 5842, 5814 (c) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). We will refer generally to the AEC to cover the NRC and ERDA after their formation, except where the context requires specific designation of the NRC or ERDA.
“The term ‘source material’ means (1) uranium, thorium, or any other material which is determined by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of section 2091 of this title to be source material; or (2) ores containing one or more of the foregoing materials, in such concentration as the Commission may by regulation determine from time to time.” 42 U. S. C. § 2014 (z).
“The term'special nuclear material’ means (1) plutonium, uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any other material which the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of section 2071 of this title, determines to be special nuclear material, but does not include source material; or (2) any material artificially enriched by any of the foregoing, but does not include source material.” 42 U. S. C. §2014(aa).
“The term ‘byproduct material’ means any radioactive material (except special nuclear material) yielded in or made radioactive by exposure to the radiation incident to the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear material.” 42 U. S. C. § 2014(e).
The Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station is owned and operated by an NRC licensee, and is accordingly bound by the AEC (NRC) regulations. The Rocky Flats plant is a federal facility operated for the ERDA by a private contractor to fabricate plutonium into nuclear weapon parts. The ERDA is also responsible for the operation of approximately 24 other facilities that discharge low levels of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials. All of these facilities are required to conform to the same effluent standards established by the NRC for commercial facilities. Executive Order No. 11752, §4 (a)(6), 3 CFR, p. 384 (1974).
The permit program of Colorado, where this case originated, was approved by the EPA on April 8, 1975. 40 Fed. Reg. 16713.
“The term ‘pollutant’ means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. This term does not mean (A) ‘sewage from vessels’ within the meaning of section 1322 of this title; or (B) water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which the well is located, and if such State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of ground or surface water resources.” 33 U. S. C. § 1362 (6) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
Respondents suggest that the EPA’s original interpretation of the term “radioactive materials” was to the contrary. They note that the initial public notice on the Fort St. Vrain permit application— published before the EPA regulations interpreting the Act to exclude coverage of AEA-regulated radioactive materials — contemplated the imposition of limitations on the discharge of “liquid radioactive wastes.” Since we do not depend upon the EPA interpretation of the Act in reaching our conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider whether any alleged inconsistencies in the EPA’s position warrant our treating it with less deference than would otherwise be the ease. See, e. g., Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 421 U. S. 60, 87 (1975); Udall v. Tollman, 380 U. S. 1, 16-18 (1965).
See n. 7, supra.
Citations to “Leg. Hist.” refer to a two-volume Committee print for the Senate Committee on Public Works, A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973),
The Bureau of Radiological Health was transferred to the EPA from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare pursuant to § 2 (a) (3) (ii) (C) of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which established the EPA. 84 Stat. 2087, 5 U. S. C. App., p. 610.
The AEA, as amended in 1959, 73 Stat. 688, 42 U. S. C. § 2021, does permit the States to assume, pursuant to agreements with the AEC, a limited role in regulating source and
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is a sequel to this Court’s decision in Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749, and companion cases. One of those cases related to the same person who is petitioner here and to the same events.
Petitioner appeared before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities on February 28 and March 1, 1955. He answered certain questions, but refused to answer others concerning his affiliation with the Communist Party, the affiliation of others, and his connection with a “Peace Crusade.” He had challenged the jurisdiction of the Committee and the Subcommittee, the authorization of each, and the constitutionality of the inquiry in general and with specific reference to the questions which he declined to answer. He did not and does not invoke the Fifth Amendment.
He was indicted for contempt of Congress under Rev. Stat. § 102, as amended, 52 Stat. 942, 2 U. S. C. § 192 (1964 ed.) (hereafter, § 192) as a result of his refusals to answer. He was convicted. In Russell v. United States, supra, this Court reversed, holding that the indictment was defective because it did not allege the “subject under inquiry.” The Court noted that under § 192 specification of the subject of the inquiry is fundamental to a charge of violating its provisions. Absent an allegation of the subject matter of the inquiry, this Court held, there is no way in which it can be determined whether the factual recitals of the indictment charged a crime under § 192 — that is, a refusal to answer questions “pertinent to the inquiry,” and within the legislative competence of Congress.
Petitioner was thereafter re-indicted. The deficiency in the first indictment was sought to be cured by a recital that “[t]he subject of these hearings was Communist Party activities within the field of labor . . . .” Petitioner was again convicted and given a general sentence of three months’ imprisonment and a $200 fine. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed per curiam. 121 U. S. App. D. C. 126, 348 F. 2d 355 (1965). We granted certiorari. 382 U. S. 937. We reverse. It is now clear that the fault in these proceedings is more fundamental than the omission from the indictment of an allegation of the “subject of the inquiry” being conducted by the Subcommittee. The subject of the inquiry was never specified or authorized by the Committee, as required by its own rules, nor was there a lawful delegation of authority to the Subcommittee to conduct the investigation.
Petitioner here urges that we reconsider this Court’s decision in Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109. In Barenblatt this Court upheld the authority of the Committee to investigate Communist infiltration into the field of education. In the circumstances of that case, the Court sustained the constitutionality of the investigation and of the Committee’s inquiry into petitioner’s alleged membership in the Communist Party. Since we decide the present case on other grounds, it is not necessary nor would it be appropriate to reach the constitutional question.
I.
Rule I of the Rules of Procedure of the House Committee on Un-American Activities provides that “No major investigation shall be initiated without approval of a majority of the Committee.” Rule XI, par. 26, of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each Committee of the House to keep a record of all committee actions. There is no resolution, minute or record of the Committee authorizing the inquiry with which we are concerned.
The Solicitor General’s brief in this Court states that: “Admittedly,, there is no direct evidence that the Committee approved the investigation of Communist activities in the field of labor of which the hearings at which petitioner was called to testify were a part.” A footnote to this statement concedes that “We do not dispute that this investigation was a ‘major’ one and that approval by a majority of the Committee was therefore required.”
The Government’s only plea in avoidance of this obvious deficiency is that we should “infer” Committee approval of the inquiry at which petitioner was required to respond to questions, because it was part of the Committee’s alleged “continuing investigation” of Communist activities in the labor field. But this is clearly impermissible. We are not here dealing with the justification for an investigation by a committee of the Congress as a matter of congressional administration. That is a legislative matter. We are here concerned with a criminal proceeding. It is clear as a matter of law that the usual standards of the criminal law must be observed, including proper allegation and proof of all the essential elements of the offense. Moreover, the Congress, in enacting § 192, specifically indicated that it relied upon the courts to apply the exacting standards of criminal jurisprudence to charges of contempt of Congress in order to assure that the congressional investigative power, when enforced by penal sanctions, would not be abused.
It can hardly be disputed that a specific, properly authorized subject of inquiry is an essential element of the offense under § 192. In Russell, this Court held that the definition of the subject under inquiry is “the basic preliminary question which the federal courts . . . [would] have to decide in determining whether a criminal offense had been alleged or proved.” “Our decisions have pointed out that the obvious first step in determining whether the questions asked were pertinent to the subject under inquiry is to ascertain what that subject was.” 369 U. S., at 756-757, 758-759. See also Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U. S. 399, 407-409; Deutch v. United States, 367 U. S. 456, 467-469; Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 208-215; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, 295-296. In United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41, Mr. Justice Frankfurter observed that the resolution defining the subject of a committee’s inquiry is the committee’s “controlling charter” and delimits its “right. to exact testimony.” 345 U. S., at 44. Cf. Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, 295-298. This Court made it clear in Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 201, 206, that pertinency is a “jurisdictional concept” and it must be determined by reference to the authorizing resolution of an investigation. The House Committee on Un-American Activities has itself recognized the fundamental importance of specific authorization by providing in its Rule I that a major inquiry must be initiated by vote of a majority of the Committee. When a committee rule relates to a matter of such importance, it must be strictly observed. Yellin v. United States, 374 U. S. 109. Since the present inquiry is concededly part of a “major investigation” and the Committee did not authorize it as required by its own Rule I, this prosecution must fail. There is no basis for invoking criminal sanctions to punish a witness for refusal to cooperate in an inquiry which was never properly authorized.
Indeed, the present case illustrates the wisdom of the Committee’s Rule requiring specific authorization of a major investigation. Here, in the absence of official authorization of a specific inquiry, statements were made as to the subject and purpose of the inquiry which, to say the least, might have caused confusion as to the subject of the investigation, and might well have inspired respectable doubts as to legal validity of the Committee’s purposes. A brief recapitulation of the relevant facts will demonstrate this:
1. On November 19, 1954, about a month and a half before appointment of the Subcommittee, the Chairman of the Committee was reported as having announced that “large public hearings in industrial communities” would be held to expose active Communists as part of “a new plan for driving Reds out of important industries.”
2. On February 14, when a representative of petitioner’s union appeared to request a postponement, the Chairman of the Committee stated that “all of us are interested in seeing your union go out of business.” A similar statement by the Chairman of the Subcommittee was reported in the press on February 15.
3. On February 21, the record shows that a newspaper in St. Joseph, Michigan, reported a statement of the Committee Chairman that the hearing would expose petitioner and another subpoenaed witness as “card carrying Communists” and that “The rest is up to the community.” The story noted that the rescheduled hearing would precede by three days a representation election, involving the union, at St. Joseph.
4. Near the close of the testimony of the first witness at the hearing, the Chairman and other members of the Subcommittee disavowed any effort “to break or bust unions,” but added that the Committee’s purpose was to expose and break up Communist control of unions.
5. At one point in the hearing, the member of the Subcommittee who was then presiding stated that the purpose of the hearing was to consider testimony relating to Communist Party activities within the field of labor, but went on to refer to other purposes. He said that the hearing would also consider “the circumstances under which members of the Communist Party in the United States were recruited for military service in the Spanish Civil War, and to ascertain the method used by the Communist Party in securing assistance from the medical profession in carrying out its objectives.”
We do not characterize these statements or appraise their legal effect. They are relevant here only to demonstrate the insuperable hurdle of “inferring,” as the Government suggests, the authorization of the inquiry in the absence of a specific statement and the particularized authorization required by the Committee’s own rules. Obviously, some of the statements made as to the Committee’s purposes exceed the bounds which would be enforced by criminal sanctions, and others do not correspond to the allegation in the second indictment that the subject of the inquiry was “Communist Party activities within the field of labor.”
It should be noted that Rule I of the Committee has a special significance in the case of the House Un-Amer-ican Activities Committee. The Committee is a standing committee of the House, not a special committee with a specific, narrow mandate. Its charter is phrased in exceedingly broad language. It is authorized to make investigations of un-American and subversive “propaganda” and “propaganda activities” and “all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.” To support criminal prosecution under § 192, this generality must be refined as Rule I contemplated. Otherwise, it is not possible for witnesses to judge the appropriateness of questions addressed to them, or for the Committee, the Congress, or the courts to make the essential judgment which § 192 requires: whether the accused person has refused “to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry.”
It now appears that the- investigation and the “question under inquiry” in petitioner’s case were neither properly authorized nor specifically stated. Nor was the purpose of the inquiry clearly understood, apparently, even by the members of the Subcommittee themselves. Although at the outset of the hearings the Subcommittee Chairman did allude to “Communist Party activities within the field of labor” as the subject matter under investigation, statements and declarations of Committee members were at variance with this purported purpose. The recital in the second and revised indictment that it was “Communist Party activities within the field of labor” was therefore based on quicksand. Obviously, this Court’s decision in Russell cannot be satisfied by a mere statement in the indictment, having no underpinning in an authorizing resolution, that the recited subject was in fact the subject of the inquiry. Russell called for more than a draftsman’s exercise.
II.
There is in this case another fatal defect. The hearings in which petitioner was called to testify were before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-Ameri-can Activities. Pursuant to Committee authorization, the Chairman on February 9, 1955, appointed a Subcommittee of three members to conduct hearings at which three named witnesses, including petitioner, were to be called. Neither the resolution nor any minutes or other records of the Committee stated the subject matter committed to the Subcommittee or otherwise described or defined its jurisdiction in terms of subject matter. Once again, we emphasize that we express no view as to the appropriateness of this procedure as a method of conducting congressional business. But, once again, we emphasize that we must consider this procedure from the viewpoint not of the legislative process, but of the administration of criminal justice, and specifically the application of the criminal statute which has been invoked.
Viewed in this perspective, the problem admits of only one answer. Courts administering the criminal law cannot apply sanctions for violation of the mandate of an agency — here, the Subcommittee — unless that agency’s authority is clear and has been conferred in accordance with law.
We do not question the authority of the Committee appropriately to delegate functions to a subcommittee of its members, nor do we doubt the availability of § 192 for punishment of contempt before such a subcommittee in proper cases. But here, not only did the Committee fail to authorize its own investigation, but also it failed to specify the subject of inquiry that the Subcommittee was to undertake. The criminal law cannot be used to implement jurisdiction so obtained, without metes and bounds, without statement or description of the Subject committed to the Subcommittee. United States v. Seeger, 303 F. 2d 478 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1962). Cf. United States v. Lamont, 18 F. R. D. 27 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1955), aff’d, 236 F. 2d 312 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1956). In Seeger, a contempt conviction had been obtained for refusal to answer questions of a subcommittee. The resolution establishing the Subcommittee, like that in the present case, announced the date for the hearing and stated the Subcommittee’s members, but stated no subject matter. As Judge Moore, concurring, put it:
“Even the most liberal construction cannot transform . . . [this] into a resolution of the Committee vesting its authority in a subcommittee . . . .” 303 F. 2d, at 487.
See also United States v. Kamin, 136 F. Supp. 791 (D. C. D. Mass. 1956).
We need not consider whether the Committee, by express resolution, might have delegated all of its authority to the Subcommittee. It did not attempt this, nor did it otherwise specify the subject matter as to which the Subcommittee was authorized to act. Accordingly, even if we were able to establish proper authorization by the Committee itself pursuant to Rule I to conduct the inquiry at which the questions were asked which petitioner refused to answer, this prosecution would fail. The jurisdiction of the courts cannot be invoked to impose criminal sanctions in aid of a roving commission. The subject of the inquiry of the specific body before which the alleged contempt occurred must be clear and certain. As Chief Judge Clark stated in United States v. Lamont, supra, at 315, it is neeessary to “[link] the inquiry conducted by the subcommittee to the grant of authority dispensed to its parent committee.”
Reference to § 192 emphasizes the importance of this requirement. The statute requires that a witness, to be found guilty of contempt, must have “been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony . . . upon any matter under inquiry before either House . . . The authority being exercised is that of the House of Representatives. See Watkins, 354 U. S., at 200-205. It is the investigatory power of the House that is vindicated by § 192. The legislative history of § 192 makes plain that a clear chain of authority from the House to the questioning body is an essential element of the offense. If the contempt occurs before a subcommittee, the line of authority from the House to the Committee and then to the subcommittee must plainly and explicitly appear, and it must appear in terms of a delegation with respect to a particular, specific subject matter. As Judge Weinfeld stated in United States v. Lamont, supra, at 32,
“No committee of either the House or Senate, and no Senator and no Representative, is free on its or his own to conduct investigations unless authorized. Thus it must appear that Congress empowered the Committee to act, and further that at the time the witness allegedly defied its authority the Committee was acting within the power granted to it.”
Absent proof of a clear delegation to the Subcommittee of authority to conduct an inquiry into a designated subject, the Subcommittee was without authority which can be vindicated by criminal sanctions under § 192, nor was there an authoritative specification of the “subject matter of the inquiry” necessary for the determination of pertinency required by the section.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment below is
Reversed.
While concurring in the Court’s judgment and opinion, Mr. Justice Black would prefer to reverse the judgment by holding that the House Un-American Activities Committee’s inquiries here amounted to an‘unconstitutional encroachment on the judicial power for reasons stated in his dissent in Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 135.
At the outset of the hearings, petitioner's counsel filed a motion which asked that the subpoenas be vacated and the hearings “set aside” on the grounds, among others, that the Committee was not engaged in “a legislative investigation for a bona fide legislative purpose,” but rather in an effort to destroy the labor union of which petitioner was an officer; that the “committee’s basic resolution” is unconstitutional because “no person can determine from it the boundaries of the Committee’s power,” and that in any event it did not authorize this investigation; and that the First Amendment forbids compulsory disclosure of political beliefs and affiliations.
This provision, enacted in 1857, now (with minor changes) reads as follows:
“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.”
The leading ease on the requirement of legislative purpose is Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168. Kilbourn did not arise under § 192, but was a damage suit arising out of a direct exercise by the House of Representatives of a claimed power to punish for contempt. The Court held that since the subject matter of the investigation had not been legislative in character, the order of contempt of the House, directing its Sergeant-at-Arms to imprison the contumacious witness, afforded the Sergeant no protection from liability. See, for cases under § 192, In re Chapman, 166 U. S. 661, 667-670; McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U. S. 135, 173-180; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, 291-295; Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155, 160-161; Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 187, 200; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 133; Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U. S. 399, 410-412. See also note 6, infra.
There is some evidence in the record that the House Committee had “intermittently” (Brief for the United States, p. 4) investigated the union of which petitioner was an officer as a part of its alleged “continuing investigation.” However, nowhere in the record does any authorization of such a continuing investigation appear. In any event, the authorization of a “major investigation” by the full Committee must occur during the term of the Congress in which the investigation takes place. Neither the House of Representatives nor its committees are continuing bodies. Cf. Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231; Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U. S. 521, 542. It is the practice of the House to adopt its Rules — including the Rule which establishes the Un-American Activities Committee and defines the scope .of its authority — at the beginning of each Congress. See, e. g., 109 Cong. Rec. 14, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963); 101 Cong. Rec. 11, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955).
See, e. g., Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 208; Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749, 755; United States v. Lamont, 18 F. R. D. 27, 37 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1955), aff’d, 236 F. 2d 312 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1956).
For example, in connection with the debates on § 192, Senator Bayard, who bore the brunt of the argument for the bill in the Senate, said: “It is a rule of law very well settled, that if there is no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, the proceeding is void. In such a case, of course, a court of justice would decide that the witness could not be compelled to answer for want of jurisdiction.” Cong. Globe, 34th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 439 (1857). See also id., at 439-440.
In Russell, this Court said, “The obvious consequence [of the Congressional purpose in § 192], as the Court has repeatedly emphasized, was to confer upon the federal courts the duty to accord a person prosecuted for this statutory offense every safeguard which the law accords in all other federal criminal cases.” 369 U. S., at 755.
In the absence — as here — of any specific authorization of the inquiry and in view of the broad and conflicting statements of the committee members as to the purpose of the inquiry, the present case presents a formidable problem of the “vice of vagueness” which troubled the Court in Watkins, 354 U. S., at 209. We do not reach that problem because we decide the case on other grounds.
The record contains the following news account, the accuracy of which was not controverted:
“Rep. Francis E. Walter (D., Pa.), who will take charge in the new Congress of House activities against communists and their sympathizers, has a new plan for driving Reds out of important industries.
“He said today he plans tó hold large public hearings in industrial communities where subversives are known to be operating, and to give known or suspected commies a chance in a full glare of publicity to deny or affirm their connection with a revolutionary conspiracy — or to take shelter behind constitutional amendments.
“By this means, he said, active communists will be exposed before their neighbors and fellow workers, ‘and I have every confidence that the loyal Americans who work with them will do the rest of the job.’
“Hearings of a similar nature have been held in local areas, but Rep. Walter wants to make them bigger, with the public being urged as well as invited to attend.
“ ‘We will force these people we know to be communists to appear by the power of subpena,’ Rep. Walter said, ‘and will demonstrate to their fellow workers that they are part of a foreign conspiracy.’ ”
This Court has emphasized that there is no congressional power to investigate merely for the sake of exposure or punishment, particularly in the First Amendment area. In Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, the Court stated:
“We have no doubt that there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Id., at 200.
“There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. . . . Investigations conducted solely ... to 'punish' those investigated are indefensible.” Id., at 187.
See also cases cited at note 3, supra; and see note 6, supra.
In Watkins, 354 U. S., at 200-216, this Court considered the bearing upon the statutory requirement of pertinency of the Committee’s status as a standing committee, of its vague charter, and of failure to define the scope of its activities within that charter.
The indictment refers to Committee action taken on three dates, and the proof at trial provided no other source of authority for the Subcommittee. None of these designates or describes the subject matter of the inquiry or authorizes the subcommittee to conduct it. The Committee’s minutes for these three dates are as follows:
On January 20, 1955, the House Committee authorized its Chairman
“from time to time to appoint subcommittees composed of three or more members of the Committee on Un-American Activities, at least one of whom shall be of the minority political party, and a majority of whom shall constitute a quorum, for the purpose of performing any and all acts which the Committee as a wfhole is authorized to perform.”
Thereafter, on February 9, a meeting of the House Committee was held, the minutes of which record the following:
“Mr. Scherer moved that David Mates and John Gojack be subpenaed to appear before a subcommittee of the Committee on Internal Security [sic] in open hearing at Fort Wayne, Indiana; and that a Dr. Scharfman [sic — Dr. Shafarman] be subpenaed to appear in executive session at Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Chairman designated Mr. Moulder, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Scherer as a subcommittee to conduct the hearings in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and set the time at February 21, 1955.”
The House Committee met again on February 23, and the following took place:
“The hearings scheduled to be held at Fort Wayne, Indiana, were discussed. The Chairman stated that upon learning that a National Labor Board election was to be held in Fort Wayne on February 24, he continued the hearings until February 28 and set the place for the hearings in Washington, D. C. Mr. Scherer moved that the Committee hold hearings at a subsequent date in Fort Wayne. The motion died for want of a second. The Committee agreed that after the hearings on February 28 it would then be determined whether further hearings in Fort Wayne would be necessary.”
The action of the full Committee in reporting petitioner’s contempt to the House, and the House’s action in certifying the contempt to the United States Attorney for prosecution, cannot be taken as retroactive authorization of the investigation and definition of the delegated authority. Petitioner’s “duty to answer must be judged as of the time of his refusal.” United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41, 48.
See Cong. Globe, 34th Cong., 3d Sess., particularly at pages 406, 409-410, 427, 435 (1857). See also Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 200-201.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellant sued on behalf of five illegitimate children to recover, under a Louisiana statute (La. Civ. Code Ann. Art. 2315 (Supp. 1967)) for two kinds of damages as a result of the wrongful death of their mother: (1) the damages to them for the loss of their mother; and (2) those based on the survival of a cause of action which the mother had at the time of her death for pain and suffering. Appellees are the doctor who treated her and the insurance company.
We assume in the present state of the pleadings that the mother, Louise Levy, gave birth to these five illegitimate children and that they lived with her; that she treated them as a parent would treat any other child; that she worked as a domestic servant to support them, taking them to church every Sunday and enrolling them, at her own expense, in a parochial school. The Louisiana District Court dismissed the suit. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that “child” in Article 2315 means “legitimate child,” the denial to illegitimate children of “the right to recover” being “based on morals and general welfare because it discourages bringing children into the world out of wedlock.” 192 So. 2d 193, 195. The Supreme Court of Louisiana denied certiorari. 250 La. 25, 193 So. 2d 530.
The case is here on appeal (28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2)) ; and we noted probable jurisdiction, 389 U. S. 925, the statute as construed having been sustained against challenge under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We start from the premise that illegitimate children are not “nonpersons.” They are humans, live, and have their being. They are clearly “persons” within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
While a State has broad power when it comes, to making classifications (Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 732), it may not draw a line which constitutes an invidious discrimination against a particular class. See Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541-542. Though the test has been variously stated, the end result is whether the line drawn is a rational one. See Morey v. Doud, 354 U. S. 457, 465-466.
In applying the Equal Protection Clause to social and economic legislation, we give great latitude to the legislature in making classifications. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489; Morey v. Doud, supra, at 465-466. Even so, would a corporation, which is a “person,” for certain purposes, within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause (Pembina Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 188) be required to forgo recovery for wrongs done its interests because its incorporators were all bastards? However that might be, we have been extremely sensitive when it comes to basic civil rights (Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at 541; Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 669-670) and have not hesitated to strike down an invidious classification even though it had history and tradition on its side. (Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483; Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, supra, at 669.) The rights asserted here involve the intimate, familial relationship between a child and his own mother. When the child’s claim of damage for loss of his mother is in issue, why, in terms of “equal protection,” should the tortfeasors go free merely because the child is illegitimate? Why should the illegitimate child be denied rights merely because of his birth out of wedlock? He certainly is subject to all the responsibilities of a citizen, including the payment of taxes and conscription under the Selective Service Act. How under our constitutional regime can he be denied correlative rights which other citizens enjoy?
Legitimacy or illegitimacy of birth has no relation to the nature of the wrong allegedly inflicted on the mother. These children, though illegitimate, were dependent on her; she cared for them and nurtured them; they were indeed hers in the biological and in the spiritual sense; in her death they suffered wrong in the sense that any dependent would.
We conclude that it is invidious to discriminate against them when no action, conduct, or demeanor of theirs is possibly relevant to the harm that was done the mother.
Reversed.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see post, p. 76.]
“Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.
“The right to recover damages to property caused by an offense or quasi offense is a property right which, on the death of the obligee, is inherited by his legal, instituted, or irregular heirs, subject to the community rights of the surviving spouse.
“The right to recover all other damages caused by an offense or quasi offense, if the injured person dies, shall survive for a period of one year from the death of the deceased in favor of: (1) the surviving spouse and child or children of the deceased, or either such spouse or such child or children; (2) the surviving father and mother of the deceased, or either of them, if he left no spouse or child surviving; and (3) the surviving brothers and sisters of the deceased, or any of them, if he left no spouse, child, or parent surviving. The survivors in whose favor this right of action survives may also recover the damages which they sustained through the wrongful death of the deceased. A right to recover damages under the provisions of this paragraph is a property right which, on the death of the survivor in whose favor the right of action survived, is inherited by his legal, instituted, or irregular heirs, whether suit has been instituted thereon by the survivor or not.
“As used in this article, the words ‘child/ ‘brother/ ‘sister/ ‘father/ and ‘mother’ include a child, brother, sister, father, and mother, by adoption, respectively.”
The State of Louisiana was dismissed from the action and exceptions relating to the Charity Hospital, at which the mother was treated, were continued indefinitely. No appeal was taken with respeet to either of those defendants.
See Note, The Rights of Illegitimates Under Federal Statutes, 76 Harv. L. Rev. 337 (1962).
No State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Under Louisiana law both, parents are under a duty to support their illegitimate children. La. Civ. Code Ann. Arts. 239, 240 (1952).
We can say with Shakespeare: “Why bastard, wherefore base? When my dimensions are as well compact, My mind as generous, and my shape as true, As honest madam’s issue? Why brand they us With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?” King Lear, Act I, Scene 2.
Under Louisiana’s Workmen’s Compensation Act (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§23:1231, 23:1252, 23:1253 (1964)) an illegitimate child, who is a dependent member of the deceased parent’s family, may recover compensation for his death. See Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Mfg. Co., 208 La. 83, 22 So. 2d 842 (1945). Employers are entitled to recover from a wrongdoer workmen’s compensation payments they make to the deceased’s dependent illegitimate children. See Board of Commissioners v. City of New Orleans, 223 La. 199, 65 So. 2d 313 (1953); Thomas v. Matthews Lumber Co., 201 So. 2d 357 (Ct. App. La. 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.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission) issued an order, upon the request of petitioner National Railroad Passenger Corporation, requiring conveyance of 48.8 miles of railroad track from respondent Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) to the Corporation. In these consolidated cases we must decide whether the ICC’s decision was based on a reasonable interpretation and application of § 402(d) of the Rail Passenger Service Act, 45 U. S. C. § 562(d), the statute the Corporation invoked in the proceeding. We hold the ICC’s decision is authorized by the statute, and so reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which set aside the Commission’s action.
I
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak, is a private, for-profit corporation created by Congress in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA), Pub. L. 91-518, 84 Stat. 1328, 45 U. S. C. § 501 et seq. The purpose of Amtrak is to provide modern and efficient intercity and commuter rail passenger service. §§501, 541. Amtrak is not an agency or instrumentality of the United States Government, §541, but it has been supported over the years by congressional appropriations. Most of Amtrak’s passenger trains run over existing track systems owned and used by freight railroads. In the RPSA Congress authorized Amtrak to enter into “trackage rights” agreements which would allow Amtrak to use those tracks. When Amtrak and a freight railroad are unable to agree on the terms of such an agreement, Amtrak may request the ICC to order the track to be provided on reasonable terms. § 562(a).
In 1973 Congress amended the RPSA to add subsection (d) of § 402, 45 U. S. C. § 562(d). Section 562(d) provides in pertinent part:
“(1) If the Corporation [Amtrak] and a railroad are unable to agree upon terms for the sale to the Corporation of property (including interests in property) owned by the railroad and required for intercity rail passenger service, the Corporation may apply to the Commission [ICC] for an order establishing the need of the Corporation for the property at issue and requiring the conveyance thereof from the railroad to the Corporation on reasonable terms and conditions, including just compensation. Unless the Commission finds that—
“(A) conveyance of the property to the Corporation would significantly impair the ability of the railroad to carry out its obligations as a common carrier; and
“(B) the obligations of the Corporation to provide modern, efficient, and economical rail passenger service can adequately be met by the acquisition of alternative property (including interests in property) which is available for sale on reasonable terms to the Corporation, or available to the Corporation by the exercise of its authority under section 545(d) of this title,
“the need of the Corporation for the property shall be deemed to be established and the Commission shall order the conveyance of the property to the Corporation on such reasonable terms and conditions as it may prescribe, including just compensation.”
Amtrak may condemn nonrail property under a somewhat similar provision, § 545(d), a statute not at issue here.
The Amtrak train the “Montrealer” began offering passenger service between Washington, D. C., and Montreal in 1972. In parts of Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire the train used the tracks of the Connecticut River Line (Conn River Line), portions of which are owned by B&M and other portions by the Central Vermont Railroad (CV). B&M and CV have operated freight trains on the Conn River Line under reciprocal “trackage rights” agreements dating back to 1930.
In 1977 Amtrak entered into a “trackage rights” agreement with B&M under which B&M agreed to maintain its portions of the Conn River Line. Those portions include a 48.8-mile segment of track on the Conn River Line between Brattle-boro and Windsor, Vermont. This is the segment of track at issue here. At first the arrangement to maintain the track proceeded well, but in the early 1980’s problems developed. Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc., purchased B&M out of bankruptcy, and purchased also a railroad operating a parallel line. Amtrak’s claim is that neglect of track maintenance resulting from this purchase caused delays in Mon-trealer service. Maintenance of the Brattleboro-Windsor track was so poor that at points the train was slowed to five miles an hour. Negotiations for better maintenance were unsuccessful. In April 1987 Amtrak was forced to discontinue its Montrealer service.
Congress responded to these events in July 1987 by appropriating $5 million to upgrade the Montrealer route. Act of July 11, 1987, Pub. L. 100-71, 101 Stat. 447-448. Amtrak decided not to spend the money to upgrade the Conn River Line while B&M continued to own it, because in Amtrak’s view B&M could not be relied upon to maintain the track once restored. Amtrak began negotiations with CV and, in early 1988, reached a preliminary agreement. Amtrak promised to use its statutory condemnation power to acquire the 48.8 miles of track in question, to at once reconvey the track to CV, and to provide up to $3.1 million to upgrade and rehabilitate the segment. In return, CV promised to provide the balance of the funds necessary to upgrade the track, to maintain the track for 20 years in a condition meeting Amtrak’s standards, to grant Amtrak trackage rights for 20 years, and to grant B&M trackage rights to serve its existing customers. As a prerequisite to invoking § 562(d), Amtrak made an offer to B&M to purchase the segment for $1 million, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. B&M offered to negotiate the terms under which it would be willing to upgrade the segment and stated: “[I]t appears clear that there is no need to pursue the very complex ‘offer to purchase’ set forth in your letter.” App. 60. B&M’s refusal to accept the offer seems to have been anticipated by Amtrak and CV, as indicated by an internal CV Memorandum written in January 1988. App. 94.
Interpreting the B&M communication as a rejection of its offer, Amtrak instituted this proceeding before the ICC to compel conveyance of the. track. CV filed a simultaneous request for an exemption from ICC regulation for its acquisition of the segment upon reconveyance from Amtrak.
B&M assessed the transaction as a significant shift in its long competition with CV for freight traffic. CV already owned large parts of the Conn River Line and after the proposed transaction it would own most of it. Though B&M would have trackage rights, CV would gain not only ownership of the segment, but also the right to obtain new customers on its route. B&M alleged this gave a new advantage to CV’s corporate parent, the Canadian National Railway Company, for each railroad links up with competing companies in Canada. CV’s lines link to Canadian National, while B&M’s lines link to the Canadian Pacific, Ltd., Canadian National’s competitor. B&M challenged the transaction as simply a device to shift ownership among railroads, not to give ownership to Amtrak, which, B&M argued, was the sole purpose of the condemnation provision.
B&M filed initial objections to the § 562(d) proceeding on two grounds: that Amtrak had not shown that the parties were unable to agree on reasonable terms of sale, and that § 562(d) did not authorize condemnation of railroad lines. The ICC rejected B&M’s arguments and in a condemnation proceeding held that Amtrak had shown the inability of the parties to agree to terms. It ruled that § 562(d) covers railroad tracks because tracks are “rail property ‘required for intercity rail passenger service.’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 90-1419, pp. 130a-133a. B&M next sought to convert the proceeding into a trackage rights proceeding under § 562(a), but the ICC again rejected B&M’s position, holding that Amtrak had an “election of remedies” under § 562 and so had no obligation to seek trackage rights under subsection (a) before invoking subsection (d). Id., at 115a-116a. Meanwhile, CV and the States of Vermont and Massachusetts, as well as numerous other parties, intervened in the ICC proceeding. (CV appears as a petitioner before this Court, and Vermont and Massachusetts support petitioners.)
This was the first decided case involving Amtrak’s condemnation powers under § 562(d). Id., at 39a. The ICC issued its final decision in 1988 and ordered conveyance of the segment with just compensation of $2,373,286. It reaffirmed earlier rulings and found that Amtrak “ha[d] met the statutory criteria for the institution of a proceeding” under § 562(d). Id., at 40a-42a, 81a.
The ICC concluded that the presumption of Amtrak’s need for the track contained in § 562(d)(1) was applicable. In its view both statutory criteria must be met to rebut the presumption, and B&M had established neither. As to alternative property (subsection (B)), the ICC found that no reasonable alternative route existed for the Montrealer service. And as to significant impairment of B&M’s ability to carry out its common carrier obligations (subsection (A)), the ICC found that because B&M had been awarded just compensation and could continue to serve its customers under the “trackage rights” agreement which was part of the transaction, its ability had not been impaired. Id., at 45a-46a. The bulk of the ICC’s final decision deals with the question of just compensation, which is not before this Court. See infra, at 424.
On petition for review, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the petition and remanded the matter to the ICC for further proceedings. 286 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 911 F. 2d 743 (1990). The majority held that § 562(d) does not permit Amtrak to condemn railroad property which it intends to reconvey to another railroad. It acknowledged that the ICC had interpreted § 562 in a different way, and that in the usual course judicial deference would be given to its interpretation under the principles enunciated in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984); but the court concluded that § 562(d) is unambiguous in light of its language and history, and so no deference was due. The panel majority reasoned that because Amtrak did not intend to retain the track to be condemned, it needed only its use, not its ownership. As Amtrak could obtain use of the property by obtaining either a “trackage rights” agreement under § 562(a), or by condemning an easement under § 562(d), the entire fee interest was not “ ‘required for intercity rail passenger service.’” 286 U. S. App. D. C., at 8, 911 F. 2d, at 750. The majority stated that its holding was confirmed by other considerations, including: (1) the potential constitutional problems, under the Takings Clause, raised by the ICC’s interpretation of § 562(d); (2) the structure of §562, which indicated an intent on the part of Congress to relegate Amtrak to trackage rights under § 562(a) when seeking only the use of track; and (3) Congress’ policy against cross-subsidization between sectors of the railroad industry, which the majority concluded would have been violated by this transaction. Judge Ruth B. Ginsburg concurred separately, rejecting the majority’s interpretation of the statute, but concluding that a remand to the ICC was necessary because the ICC had not made adequate findings to determine whether Amtrak in fact needed to shift ownership of the segment from B&M to CV to protect its interests. Id., at 11-13, 911 F. 2d, at 753-755. This factual question, whether Amtrak’s portrayal of a recalcitrant B&M is accurate, remains in dispute. Under our resolution of the case, however, the issue need not be reached.
Amtrak and the ICC filed petitions for rehearing, and while the petitions were pending Congress amended § 562(d). The amendment, adopted in specific response to the Court of Appeals’ decision in this case, added the following sentence to § 562(d)(1): “The Corporation may subsequently convey title or other interest in such property to a third party, if such reconveyance is found by the Commission to further the purposes of this Act.” Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1990 § 9(a), Pub. L. 101-641, 104 Stat. 4658. The amendment was made applicable to all pending cases, §9(b), and B&M does not dispute that it applied in this case even while it was before the Court of Appeals on rehearing. Brief for Respondent B&M 33-35. The Court of Appeals considered the 1990 amendment, but denied rehearing nonetheless. 288 U. S. App. D. C. 196, 925 F. 2d 427 (1991). The panel majority held that while § 9 made it clear Amtrak was authorized to reconvey condemned property “subsequent to a condemnation that is otherwise valid under [§ 562(d)],” it did not change the statutory limitation that the property be “ ‘required for intercity rail passenger service’ ” in the first place. Id., at 197, 925 F. 2d, at 428 (emphasis in original). The majority reasoned that since its original decision was based on Amtrak’s failure to satisfy that requirement, the amendment did not affect its holding. The majority also distinguished a case from the Second Circuit, National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Two Parcels of Land, 822 F. 2d 1261, cert. denied, 484 U. S. 954 (1987), which had interpreted § 545(d)(1) (the provision authorizing Amtrak to condemn nonrail property) to permit reconveyance following condemnation. 288 U. S. App. D. C., at 196-197, 425 F. 2d, at 427-428. In a separate opinion, Judge Ginsburg wrote that the amendment confirmed her view that the ICC had not misinterpreted the statute, but that a remand remained necessary for further factual determinations.
Amtrak and CV, in No. 90-1419, and the ICC, in No. 90-1769, filed separate petitions seeking review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. We granted certiorari and consolidated the cases. 502 U. S. 807 (1991). We now reverse.
II
The primary question raised by these cases is a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation: whether § 562(d), as amended, authorizes the condemnation and transaction approved by the ICC but set aside by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals disallowed the transaction based on its own interpretation of the language “required for intercity rail passenger service” in § 562(d)(1). In so holding it limited Amtrak’s condemnation authority to property that was necessary, in the sense of indispensable, to Amtrak’s operations. The ICC interpreted the relevant statutory language to give Amtrak more latitude, and it is our task to determine whether the Commission had authority for its statutory interpretation.
Judicial deference to reasonable interpretations by an agency of a statute that it administers is a dominant, well-settled principle of federal law. We relied upon it in Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), and have reaffirmed it often. See, e. g., K mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U. S. 281, 292-293 (1988); Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U. S. 680, 696-697 (1991). These decisions mandate that when a court is reviewing an agency decision based on a statutory interpretation, “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron U. S. A., supra, at 843. If the agency interpretation is not in conflict with the plain language of the statute, deference is due. K mart Corp., 486 U. S., at 292. In ascertaining whether the agency’s interpretation is a permissible construction of the language, a court must look to the structure and language of the statute as a whole. Id., at 291; Sullivan v. Everhart, 494 U. S. 83, 89 (1990). If the text is ambiguous and so open to interpretation in some respects, a degree of deference is granted to the agency, though a reviewing court need not accept an interpretation which is unreasonable.
Under these principles the ICC’s interpretation of § 562(d) was permissible, and the Court of Appeals’ decision was in error to disregard it. While the ICC’s opinion is not explicit in all of its details, the Commission’s decision is based on a reading of the statute quite different from the Court of Appeals’. The ICC agreed that property Amtrak seeks to condemn under § 562(d) must be “required for intercity rail passenger service.” It determined, however, that the word “required” need not mean, as the Court of Appeals’ opinion suggests, indispensable or necessary. Instead, the ICC gave effect to the statutory presumption of Amtrak’s need for the track, and in so doing implemented and interpreted the statute in a manner that comports with its words and structure. The analysis of the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with the Commission’s interpretation of the statutory presumption of need. The ICC’s position before the Court is that “required” can also mean “useful or appropriate,” Brief for Petitioners in No. 90-1769, p. 17, and that the order under review adopted that meaning. We agree that the manner in which the ICC has applied the statute in this case has that interpretation as its basic premise. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 90-1419, pp. 42a-46a.
In its brief the ICC cites a dictionary definition in support of its view. Brief for Petitioners in No. 90-1769, p. 17, citing Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1929 (1986). The existence of alternative dictionary definitions of the word “required,” each making some sense under the statute, itself indicates that the statute is open to interpretation. See Sullivan v. Everhart, supra. Few phrases in a complex scheme of regulation are so clear as to be beyond the need for interpretation when applied in a real context. Further, the structure of the provision reinforces our conclusion that statutory interpretation is appropriate and that the Court of Appeals’ interpretation is itself open to serious question. The court defined the word “required” to establish a separate condition that the property sought to be condemned be necessary (indispensable) for Amtrak’s operations, a view which is not without support. See, e. g., American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1105 (2d ed. 1981). This interpretation, though, leaves little substance to the statutory presumption in favor of Amtrak’s need and so is in clear tension with that part of the statute.
We decide that § 562(d) is ambiguous in some respects and conclude that the ICC’s interpretation of the word “required” is a reasonable one. We defer to its interpretation. This is not to say that the issue is beyond dispute, but these alternative interpretations are as old as the jurisprudence of this Court. In McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 413 (1819), Chief Justice Marshall, in a choice of interpretations with some parallels to this one, read the word “necessary” to mean “convenient, or useful,” rejecting a stricter reading of the term which would have limited congressional power under the Constitution to the “most direct and simple” means available. We think that as a matter of definition and interpretation in the context of this statute it is plausible, if not preferable, to say that Amtrak can find that an acquisition is required when it is a useful and appropriate way to accomplish its goals.
The Commission’s interpretation is consistent also with the 1990 statutory addition enacted by Congress. While the amendment does not modify the specific language of § 562(d) at issue here, it confirms the ICC’s view. The interpretation given to § 562(d) by the Court of Appeals and B&M, on the other hand, would make the amendment superfluous, because if the word “required” has the strict meaning they seek to attribute to it, condemnations by Amtrak would seem to be barred whenever Amtrak’s purpose is to reconvey the property.
Contrary to the position of the dissent, we are not “deferring to what we imagine an agency had in mind.” Post, at 428. Rather, we defer to an interpretation which was a necessary presupposition of the ICC’s decision. We recognize the well-established rule that an agency’s action may not be upheld on grounds other than those relied on by the agency. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 88 (1943). But the fact that the ICC did not in so many words articulate its interpretation of the word “required” does not mean that we may not defer to that interpretation, since the only reasonable reading of the Commission’s opinion, and the only plausible explanation of the issues that the Commission addressed after considering the factual submissions by all of the parties, is that the ICC’s decision was based on the proffered interpretation. Chenery does not require a remand under those circumstances. It is noteworthy in this regard that neither party contends the ICC’s decision was not informed and governed by this statutory interpretation. B&M’s primary argument to the Court is that the word required must mean necessary. Brief for Respondent B&M 16, 22, 44. But this, as we have said, is quite inconsistent with the statutory presumption of need to which the ICC gave effect.
There is no dispute on this record that Amtrak intends to use the condemned track for its Montrealer service. Under the ICC’s view that use is sufficient to satisfy the statutory command that the rail property be “required for intercity rail passenger service.” This is a reasonable interpretation and application of the RPSA. And it ends the judicial inquiry on this point.
What we have said also answers Judge Ginsburg’s concern that the ICC must make specific findings regarding Amtrak’s actual need for the condemnation. The contention that such a finding was necessary, to implement the statutory criterion that the property be “required for intercity rail passenger service,” was the basis for Judge Ginsburg’s concurrence in the Court of Appeals. 286 U. S. App. D. C., at 12, 911 F. 2d, at 754. That position, however, appears to be based on the same interpretation of the word “required” as that adopted by the Court of Appeals’ majority, and so is inconsistent with the ICC’s interpretation. The ICC contends that the factual finding is not mandated. It argues that the structure of the statute, combined with the presumption created by the statute of Amtrak’s need for the property sought, creates a strong inference that the statute authorizes Amtrak to make a reasonable business judgment that condemnation of the property is advisable. We agree. The ICC’s oversight responsibility, exercised by enforcing the “required for intercity rail passenger service” language as interpreted by the Commission, is limited to ensuring that the condemned property will be used in Amtrak’s rail operations. The further determination of need is delegated to Amtrak, unless the statutory presumption is rebutted; and it is not rebutted here. Indeed, as our discussion above indicates, supra, at 418-419, it seems to us that any other interpretation may be inconsistent with the statutory presumption of need. In all events, the ICC’s interpretation is a reasonable one, and we may not substitute a different view.
Arguing against the ICC’s interpretation, B&M cites to us cases such as United States v. Carmack, 329 U. S. 230, 243, n. 13 (1946), which suggest that delegations of eminent domain power to private entities are of a limited nature. We do not believe that argument has any relevance here because Amtrak does not exercise eminent domain power under § 562(d). Rather, the statute gives that power to the ICC, a Government agency. To be sure, the statute creates a presumption in favor of conveyance to Amtrak. But the ICC must assess the impact of any condemnation and make a determination as to just compensation. Since § 562(d) is a proper exercise of regulatory authority, and the ICC’s oversight of Amtrak is intended to ensure compliance with the statute, the eminent domain power here is not private.
Furthermore, this case turns on the need for deference to the ICC, not Amtrak. There is nothing in the cases B&M cites contradicting the rule of judicial deference to an agency’s statutory interpretation, even when the statute is one authorizing condemnation of private property. In short, the principle advanced by B&M does not prevail over Chevron’s rule of deference.
We also reject B&M’s constitutional objections. B&M claims that § 562(d) as interpreted by the Commission violates the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, because the transaction leaves unchanged the use made by Amtrak of the condemned track. B&M’s position cannot be reconciled with our precedents. We have held that the public use requirement of the Takings Clause is coterminous with the regulatory power, and that the Court will not strike down a condemnation on the basis that it lacks a public use so long as the taking “is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.” Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, 240-241 (1984); see also Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26, 32-34 (1954). In Midkiff we upheld land reform legislation which authorized condemnations for the specific purpose of transferring ownership to another private party, in order to eliminate a land oligopoly. In Berman we permitted land condemnations which contemplated reselling the land to redevelopers, as part of a plan to restore dilapidated sections of the District of Columbia. In both Midkiff and Berman, as in the present case, condemnation resulted in the transfer of ownership from one private party to another, with the basic use of the property by the government remaining unchanged. The Court held these exercises of the condemnation povier to be constitutional, as long as the condemning authorities were rational in their positions that some public purpose was served. Those holdings control here, for there can be no serious argument that the ICC was irrational in determining that the condemnation will, serve a public purpose by facilitating Amtrak’s rail service. That suffices to satisfy the Constitution, and we need not make a specific factual determination whether the condemnation will accomplish its objectives. Midkiff, supra, at 242-243.
As a last effort, B&M argues that this matter must be remanded to the ICC because the Commission did not make adequate and accurate findings regarding several different matters. B&M claims that Amtrak failed to prove the parties were “‘unable’ to agree” on terms of sale. In B&M’s view, § 562(d) demands that Amtrak engage in “good faith ... negotiations” before it may invoke its condemnation powers. Brief for Respondent B&M 42. The ICC construed the language of § 562(d) in a more narrow fashion, to mandate nothing more than a factual determination that the parties will not be able to reach agreement through further negotiations. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 90-1419, pp. 130a-131a (“Nothing in this record provides any indication that Amtrak and B&M will ever reach agreement on terms of sale”). This is a reasonable interpretation of the phrase “unable to agree upon terms for the sale,” and we do not substitute a different view. Thus the Commission did not err in concluding that this statutory prerequisite was satisfied.
B&M argues further that the ICC made inadequate factual findings in concluding: (1) that this conveyance will not significantly impair B&M’s ability to carry out its obligations as a common carrier, § 562(d)(1)(A); and (2) that Amtrak’s obligations cannot be met by the acquisition of alternative property, § 562(d)(1)(B). As to significant impairment, B&M’s argument, like the decision of the Court of Appeals on this point, 286 U. S. App. D. C., at 8-9, 911 F. 2d, at 750-751, relies on the notion that in assessing impairment the ICC may consider only the conveyance itself, not any mitigating measures adopted in response to the conveyance, such as the grant of trackage rights to B&M. We find no basis in the text or structure of § 562(d) for this position and cannot say that the statute must be interpreted to mandate such a restrictive inquiry. The ICC was not unreasonable in considering the effect of the “trackage rights” agreements and the just compensation award in assessing significant impairment; and the ICC’s conclusion, that B&M’s ability to carry out its common carrier obligations will not be impaired by the transaction in any significant way, is supported by substantial evidence. As to the availability of alternative property, the ICC interpreted that provision as referring only to whether Amtrak could provide service using an alternative route, not whether a lesser interest in property would suffice to meet Amtrak’s needs. Again, this was a reasonable reading to which we defer. Since B&M would have to prevail on both the significant impairment and alternative property issues to rebut Amtrak’s presumption of need, there can be no doubt that the ICC’s finding that Amtrak established its need for the property must be affirmed.
Ill
For the reasons we have stated, we hold that the ICC did not exceed its authority in ordering conveyance of the 48.8-mile segment of the Conn River Line from B&M to Amtrak. Because of its contrary holding on this point, the Court of Appeals did not address the parties’ challenges to the ICC’s just compensation finding as well as certain other issues. Id., at 11, 911 F. 2d, at 753. These questions should be resolved on remand. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment constrains governmental actors and protects private actors. To draw the line between governmental and private, this Court applies what is known as the state-action doctrine. Under that doctrine, as relevant here, a private entity may be considered a state actor when it exercises a function "traditionally exclusively reserved to the State." Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352, 95 S.Ct. 449, 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974).
This state-action case concerns the public access channels on Time Warner's cable system in Manhattan. Public access channels are available for private citizens to use. The public access channels on Time Warner's cable system in Manhattan are operated by a private nonprofit corporation known as MNN. The question here is whether MNN-even though it is a private entity-nonetheless is a state actor when it operates the public access channels. In other words, is operation of public access channels on a cable system a traditional, exclusive public function? If so, then the First Amendment would restrict MNN's exercise of editorial discretion over the speech and speakers on the public access channels.
Under the state-action doctrine as it has been articulated and applied by our precedents, we conclude that operation of public access channels on a cable system is not a traditional, exclusive public function. Moreover, a private entity such as MNN who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. In operating the public access channels, MNN is a private actor, not a state actor, and MNN therefore is not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. We reverse in relevant part the judgment of the Second Circuit, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I
A
Since the 1970s, public access channels have been a regular feature on cable television systems throughout the United States. In the 1970s, Federal Communications Commission regulations required certain cable operators to set aside channels on their cable systems for public access. In 1979, however, this Court ruled that the FCC lacked statutory authority to impose that mandate. See FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689, 99 S.Ct. 1435, 59 L.Ed.2d 692 (1979). A few years later, Congress passed and President Reagan signed the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. 98 Stat. 2779. The Act authorized state and local governments to require cable operators to set aside channels on their cable systems for public access. 47 U.S.C. § 531(b).
The New York State Public Service Commission regulates cable franchising in New York State and requires cable operators in the State to set aside channels on their cable systems for public access. 16 N.Y. Codes, Rules & Regs. §§ 895.1(f), 895.4(b) (2018). State law requires that use of the public access channels be free of charge and first-come, first-served. §§ 895.4(c)(4) and (6). Under state law, the cable operator operates the public access channels unless the local government in the area chooses to itself operate the channels or designates a private entity to operate the channels. § 895.4(c)(1).
Time Warner (now known as Charter) operates a cable system in Manhattan. Under state law, Time Warner must set aside some channels on its cable system for public access. New York City (the City) has designated a private nonprofit corporation named Manhattan Neighborhood Network, commonly referred to as MNN, to operate Time Warner's public access channels in Manhattan. This case involves a complaint against MNN regarding its management of the public access channels.
B
Because this case comes to us on a motion to dismiss, we accept the allegations in the complaint as true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced public access programming in Manhattan. They made a film about MNN's alleged neglect of the East Harlem community. Halleck submitted the film to MNN for airing on MNN's public access channels, and MNN later televised the film. Afterwards, MNN fielded multiple complaints about the film's content. In response, MNN temporarily suspended Halleck from using the public access channels.
Halleck and Melendez soon became embroiled in another dispute with MNN staff. In the wake of that dispute, MNN ultimately suspended Halleck and Melendez from all MNN services and facilities.
Halleck and Melendez then sued MNN, among other parties, in Federal District Court. The two producers claimed that MNN violated their First Amendment free-speech rights when MNN restricted their access to the public access channels because of the content of their film.
MNN moved to dismiss the producers' First Amendment claim on the ground that MNN is not a state actor and therefore is not subject to First Amendment restrictions on its editorial discretion. The District Court agreed with MNN and dismissed the producers' First Amendment claim.
The Second Circuit reversed in relevant part. 882 F. 3d 300, 308 (2018). In the majority opinion authored by Judge Newman and joined by Judge Lohier, the court stated that the public access channels in Manhattan are a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment. Reasoning that "public forums are usually operated by governments," the court concluded that MNN is a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints. Id., at 306-307. Judge Lohier added a concurring opinion, explaining that MNN also qualifies as a state actor for the independent reason that "New York City delegated to MNN the traditionally public function of administering and regulating speech in the public forum of Manhattan's public access channels." Id., at 309.
Judge Jacobs dissented in relevant part, opining that MNN is not a state actor. He reasoned that a private entity's operation of an open forum for speakers does not render the host entity a state actor. Judge Jacobs further stated that the operation of public access channels is not a traditional, exclusive public function.
We granted certiorari to resolve disagreement among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether private operators of public access cable channels are state actors subject to the First Amendment. 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 360, 202 L.Ed.2d 261 (2018). Compare 882 F. 3d 300 (case below), with Wilcher v. Akron, 498 F. 3d 516 (CA6 2007) ; and Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 56 F. 3d 105 (CADC 1995).
II
Ratified in 1791, the First Amendment provides in relevant part that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Ratified in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment makes the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause applicable against the States: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." § 1. The text and original meaning of those Amendments, as well as this Court's longstanding precedents, establish that the Free Speech Clause prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech. The Free Speech Clause does not prohibit private abridgment of speech. See, e.g., Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 737, 116 S.Ct. 2374, 135 L.Ed.2d 888 (1996) (plurality opinion); Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 566, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995) ; Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 47 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976) ; cf. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 256, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974).
In accord with the text and structure of the Constitution, this Court's state-action doctrine distinguishes the government from individuals and private entities. See Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn., 531 U.S. 288, 295-296, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807 (2001). By enforcing that constitutional boundary between the governmental and the private, the state-action doctrine protects a robust sphere of individual liberty.
Here, the producers claim that MNN, a private entity, restricted their access to MNN's public access channels because of the content of the producers' film. The producers have advanced a First Amendment claim against MNN. The threshold problem with that First Amendment claim is a fundamental one: MNN is a private entity.
Relying on this Court's state-action precedents, the producers assert that MNN is nonetheless a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. Under this Court's cases, a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances-including, for example, (i) when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function, see, e.g., Jackson, 419 U.S. at 352-354, 95 S.Ct. 449 ; (ii) when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action, see, e.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004-1005, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982) ; or (iii) when the government acts jointly with the private entity, see, e.g., Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 941-942, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982).
The producers' primary argument here falls into the first category: The producers contend that MNN exercises a traditional, exclusive public function when it operates the public access channels on Time Warner's cable system in Manhattan. We disagree.
A
Under the Court's cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises "powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State." Jackson, 419 U.S. at 352, 95 S.Ct. 449. It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function. See Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 842, 102 S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982) ; Jackson, 419 U.S. at 352-353, 95 S.Ct. 449 ; Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 300, 86 S.Ct. 486, 15 L.Ed.2d 373 (1966).
The Court has stressed that "very few" functions fall into that category. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 158, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). Under the Court's cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. See Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 468-470, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953) (elections); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 505-509, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946) (company town); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 662-666, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944) (elections); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73, 84-89, 52 S.Ct. 484, 76 L.Ed. 984 (1932) (elections). The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity. See American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 55-57, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999) (insurance payments); National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 197, n. 18, 109 S.Ct. 454, 102 L.Ed.2d 469 (1988) (college sports); San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 544-545, 107 S.Ct. 2971, 97 L.Ed.2d 427 (1987) (amateur sports); Blum, 457 U.S. at 1011-1012, 102 S.Ct. 2777 (nursing home); Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 842, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (special education); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-319, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981) (public defender); Flagg Bros., 436 U.S. at 157-163, 98 S.Ct. 1729 (private dispute resolution); Jackson, 419 U.S. at 352-354, 95 S.Ct. 449 (electric service).
The relevant function in this case is operation of public access channels on a cable system. That function has not traditionally and exclusively been performed by government.
Since the 1970s, when public access channels became a regular feature on cable systems, a variety of private and public actors have operated public access channels, including: private cable operators; private nonprofit organizations; municipalities; and other public and private community organizations such as churches, schools, and libraries. See Denver Area, 518 U.S. at 761-762, 116 S.Ct. 2374 (plurality opinion); R. Oringel & S. Buske, The Access Manager's Handbook: A Guide for Managing Community Television 14-17 (1987).
The history of public access channels in Manhattan further illustrates the point. In 1971, public access channels first started operating in Manhattan. See D. Brenner, M. Price, & M. Meyerson, Cable Television and Other Nonbroadcast Video § 6:29, p. 6-47 (2018). Those early Manhattan public access channels were operated in large part by private cable operators, with some help from private nonprofit organizations. See G. Gillespie, Public Access Cable Television in the United States and Canada 37-38 (1975); Janes, History and Structure of Public Access Television, 39 J. Film & Video, No. 3, pp. 15-17 (1987). Those private cable operators continued to operate the public access channels until the early 1990s, when MNN (also a private entity) began to operate the public access channels.
In short, operating public access channels on a cable system is not a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of this Court's cases.
B
To avoid that conclusion, the producers widen the lens and contend that the relevant function here is not simply the operation of public access channels on a cable system, but rather is more generally the operation of a public forum for speech. And according to the producers, operation of a public forum for speech is a traditional, exclusive public function.
That analysis mistakenly ignores the threshold state-action question. When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content. See, e.g., Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 547, 555, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975) (private theater leased to the city); Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 93, 96, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (sidewalks); Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 515-516, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939) (streets and parks).
By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine. 424 U.S. at 520-521, 96 S.Ct. 1029 ; see also Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569-570, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 33 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972) ; Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB, 407 U.S. 539, 547, 92 S.Ct. 2238, 33 L.Ed.2d 122 (1972) ; Alliance for Community Media, 56 F. 3d at 121-123.
The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it "is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment." 882 F. 3d at 311 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.
If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. "The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use." Hudgens, 424 U.S. at 519, 96 S.Ct. 1029 (internal quotation marks omitted). Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as "a stagecoach, with seats for everyone." F. Mott, American Journalism 55 (3d ed. 1962). That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be "to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country." 424 U.S. at 517, 96 S.Ct. 1029 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.
The producers here are seeking in effect to circumvent this Court's case law, including Hudgens. But Hudgens is sound, and we therefore reaffirm our holding in that case.
C
Next, the producers retort that this case differs from Hudgens because New York City has designated MNN to operate the public access channels on Time Warner's cable system, and because New York State heavily regulates MNN with respect to the public access channels. Under this Court's cases, however, those facts do not establish that MNN is a state actor.
New York City's designation of MNN to operate the public access channels is analogous to a government license, a government contract, or a government-granted monopoly. But as the Court has long held, the fact that the government licenses, contracts with, or grants a monopoly to a private entity does not convert the private entity into a state actor-unless the private entity is performing a traditional, exclusive public function. See, e.g., San Francisco Arts & Athletics, 483 U.S. at 543-544, 107 S.Ct. 2971 (exclusive-use rights and corporate charters); Blum, 457 U.S. at 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777 (licenses); Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840-841, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (contracts); Polk County, 454 U.S. at 319, n. 9, and 320-322, 102 S.Ct. 445 (law licenses);
Jackson, 419 U.S. at 351-352, 95 S.Ct. 449 (electric monopolies); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 120-121, 93 S.Ct. 2080, 36 L.Ed.2d 772 (1973) (broadcast licenses); Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 176-177, 92 S.Ct. 1965, 32 L.Ed.2d 627 (1972) (liquor licenses); cf. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 638-639, 4 L.Ed. 629 (1819) (corporate charters). The same principle applies if the government funds or subsidizes a private entity. See Blum, 457 U.S. at 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777 ; Rendell -Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764.
Numerous private entities in America obtain government licenses, government contracts, or government-granted monopolies. If those facts sufficed to transform a private entity into a state actor, a large swath of private entities in America would suddenly be turned into state actors and be subject to a variety of constitutional constraints on their activities. As this Court's many state-action cases amply demonstrate, that is not the law. Here, therefore, the City's designation of MNN to operate the public access channels on Time Warner's cable system does not make MNN a state actor.
So, too, New York State's extensive regulation of MNN's operation of the public access channels does not make MNN a state actor. Under the State's regulations, air time on the public access channels must be free, and programming must be aired on a first-come, first-served basis. Those regulations restrict MNN's editorial discretion and in effect require MNN to operate almost like a common carrier. But under this Court's cases, those restrictions do not render MNN a state actor.
In Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., the leading case on point, the Court stated that the "fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State." 419 U.S. at 350, 95 S.Ct. 449. In that case, the Court held that "a heavily regulated, privately owned utility, enjoying at least a partial monopoly in the providing of electrical service within its territory," was not a state actor. Id., at 358, 95 S.Ct. 449. The Court explained that the "mere existence" of a "regulatory scheme"-even if "extensive and detailed"-did not render the utility a state actor. Id., at 350, and n. 7, 95 S.Ct. 449. Nor did it matter whether the State had authorized the utility to provide electric service to the community, or whether the utility was the only entity providing electric service to much of that community.
This case closely parallels Jackson. Like the electric utility in Jackson, MNN is "a heavily regulated, privately owned" entity. Id., at 358, 95 S.Ct. 449. As in Jackson, the regulations do not transform the regulated private entity into a state actor.
Put simply, being regulated by the State does not make one a state actor. See Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 52, 119 S.Ct. 977 ; Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004, 102 S.Ct. 2777 ; Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 841-842, 102 S.Ct. 2764 ; Jackson, 419 U.S. at 350, 95 S.Ct. 449 ; Moose Lodge, 407 U.S. at 176-177, 92 S.Ct. 1965. As the Court's cases have explained, the "being heavily regulated makes you a state actor" theory of state action is entirely circular and would significantly endanger individual liberty and private enterprise. The theory would be especially problematic in the speech context, because it could eviscerate certain private entities' rights to exercise editorial control over speech and speakers on their properties or platforms. Not surprisingly, as Justice THOMAS has pointed out, this Court has "never even hinted that regulatory control, and particularly direct regulatory control over a private entity's First Amendment speech rights," could justify subjecting the regulated private entity to the constraints of the First Amendment. Denver Area, 518 U.S. at 829, 116 S.Ct. 2374 (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).
In sum, we conclude that MNN is not subject to First Amendment constraints on how it exercises its editorial discretion with respect to the public access channels. To be sure, MNN is subject to state-law constraints on its editorial discretion (assuming those state laws do not violate a federal statute or the Constitution). If MNN violates those state laws, or violates any applicable contracts, MNN could perhaps face state-law sanctions or liability of some kind. We of course take no position on any potential state-law questions. We simply conclude that MNN, as a private actor, is not subject to First Amendment constraints on how it exercises editorial discretion over the speech and speakers on its public access channels.
III
Perhaps recognizing the problem with their argument that MNN is a state actor under ordinary state-action principles applicable to private entities and private property, the producers alternatively contend that the public access channels are actually the property of New York City, not the property of Time Warner or MNN. On this theory, the producers say (and the dissent agrees) that MNN is in essence simply managing government property on behalf of New York City.
The short answer to that argument is that the public access channels are not the property of New York City. Nothing in the record here suggests that a government (federal, state, or city) owns or leases either the cable system or the public access channels at issue here. Both Time Warner and MNN are private entities. Time Warner is the cable operator, and it owns its cable network, which contains the public access channels. MNN operates those public access channels with its own facilities and equipment. The City does not own or lease the public access channels, and the City does not possess a formal easement or other property interest in those channels. The franchise agreements between the City and Time Warner do not say that the City has any property interest in the public access channels. On the contrary, the franchise agreements expressly place the public access channels "under the jurisdiction" of MNN. App. 22. Moreover, the producers did not allege in their complaint that the City has a property interest in the channels. And the producers have not cited any basis in state law for such a conclusion. Put simply, the City does not have "any formal easement or other property interest in those channels." Denver Area, 518 U.S. at 828, 116 S.Ct. 2374 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).
It does not matter that a provision in the franchise agreements between the City and Time Warner allowed the City to designate a private entity to operate the public access channels on Time Warner's cable system. Time Warner still owns the cable system. And MNN still operates the public access channels. To reiterate, nothing in the franchise agreements suggests that the City possesses any property interest in Time Warner's cable system, or in the public access channels on that system.
It is true that the City has allowed the cable operator, Time Warner, to lay cable along public rights-of-way in the City. But Time Warner's access to public rights-of-way does not alter the state-action analysis. For Time Warner, as for other cable operators, access to public rights-of-way is essential to lay cable and construct a physical cable infrastructure. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 628, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994). But the same is true for utility providers, such as the electric utility in Jackson. Put simply, a private entity's permission from government to use public rights-of-way does not render that private entity a state actor.
Having said all that, our point here should not be read too broadly. Under the laws in certain States, including New York, a local government may decide to itself operate the public access channels on a local cable system (as many local governments in New York State and around the country already do), or could take appropriate steps to obtain a property interest in the public access channels. Depending on the circumstances, the First Amendment might then constrain the local government's operation of the public access channels. We decide only the case before us in light of the record before us.
* * *
It is sometimes said that the bigger the government, the smaller the individual. Consistent with the text of the Constitution, the state-action doctrine enforces a critical boundary between the government and the individual, and thereby protects a robust sphere of individual liberty. Expanding the state-action doctrine beyond its traditional boundaries would expand governmental control while restricting individual liberty and private enterprise. We decline to do so in this case.
MNN is a private entity that operates public access channels on a cable system. Operating public access channels on a cable system is not a traditional, exclusive public function. A private entity such as MNN who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. Under the text of the Constitution and our precedents, MNN is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment. We reverse in relevant part the judgment of the Second Circuit, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG, Justice BREYER, and Justice KAGAN join, dissenting.
The Court tells a very reasonable story about a case that is not before us. I write to address the one that is.
This is a case about an organization appointed by the government to administer a constitutional public forum. (It is not, as the Court suggests, about a private property owner that simply opened up its property to others.) New York City (the City) secured a property interest in public-access television channels when it granted a cable franchise to a cable company. State regulations require those public-access channels to be made open to the public on terms that render them a public forum. The City contracted out the administration of that forum to a private organization, petitioner Manhattan Community Access Corporation (MNN). By accepting that agency relationship, MNN stepped into the City's shoes and thus qualifies as a state actor, subject to the First Amendment like any other.
I
A
A cable-television franchise is, essentially, a license to create a system for distributing cable TV in a certain area. It is a valuable right, usually conferred on a private company by a local government. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 522(9) - (10), 541(a)(2), (b)(1) ; Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 628, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994). A private company cannot enter a local cable market without one. § 541(b)(1).
Cable companies transmit content through wires that stretch "between a transmission facility and the television sets of individual subscribers." Id., at 627-628, 114 S.Ct. 2445. Creating this network of wires is a disruptive undertaking that "entails the use of public rights-of-way and easements." Id., at 628, 114 S.Ct. 2445.
New York State authorizes municipalities to grant cable franchises to cable companies of a certain size only if those companies agree to set aside at least one public access channel. 16 N.Y. Codes, Rules & Regs. §§ 895.1(f), 895.4(b)(1) (2016). New York then requires that those public-access channels be open to all comers on "a first-come, first-served, nondiscriminatory basis." § 895.4(c)(4). Likewise, the State prohibits both cable franchisees and local governments from "exercis[ing] any editorial control" over the channels, aside from regulating obscenity and other unprotected content. §§ 895.4(c)(8)-(9).
B
Years ago, New York City (no longer a party to this suit) and Time Warner Entertainment Company (never a party to this suit) entered into a cable-franchise agreement. App. 22. Time Warner received a cable franchise; the City received public-access channels. The agreement also provided that the public-access channels would be operated by an independent, nonprofit corporation chosen by the Manhattan borough president. But the City, as the practice of other New York municipalities confirms, could have instead chosen to run the channels itself. See § 895.4(c)(1) ; Brief for Respondents 35 (citing examples).
MNN is the independent nonprofit that the borough president appointed to run the channels; indeed, MNN appears to have been incorporated in 1991 for that precise purpose, with seven initial board members selected by the borough president (though only two thus selected today). See App. 23; Brief for Respondents 7, n. 1. The City arranged for MNN to receive startup capital from Time Warner and to be funded through franchise fees from Time Warner and other Manhattan cable franchisees. App. 23; Brief for New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) as Amicus Curiae 27; see also App. to Brief for Respondents 19a. As the borough president announced upon MNN's formation in 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:
|
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 KAGAN announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B, III-B, and IV, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A and III-A, in which Justice GINSBURG, Justice BREYER, and Justice SOTOMAYOR join.
This Court has often deferred to agencies' reasonable readings of genuinely ambiguous regulations. We call that practice Auer deference, or sometimes Seminole Rock deference, after two cases in which we employed it. See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) ; Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945). The only question presented here is whether we should overrule those decisions, discarding the deference they give to agencies. We answer that question no. Auer deference retains an important role in construing agency regulations. But even as we uphold it, we reinforce its limits. Auer deference is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. Whether to apply it depends on a range of considerations that we have noted now and again, but compile and further develop today. The deference doctrine we describe is potent in its place, but cabined in its scope. On remand, the Court of Appeals should decide whether it applies to the agency interpretation at issue.
I
We begin by summarizing how petitioner James Kisor's case made its way to this Court. Truth be told, nothing recounted in this Part has much bearing on the rest of our decision. The question whether to overrule Auer does not turn on any single application, whether right or wrong, of that decision's deference doctrine. But a recitation of the facts and proceedings below at least shows how the question presented arose.
Kisor is a Vietnam War veteran seeking disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He first applied in 1982, alleging that he had developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of his participation in a military action called Operation Harvest Moon. The report of the agency's evaluating psychiatrist noted Kisor's involvement in that battle, but found that he "d[id] not suffer from PTSD." App. 12, 14. The VA thus denied Kisor benefits. There matters stood until 2006, when Kisor moved to reopen his claim. Based on a new psychiatric report, the VA this time agreed that Kisor suffered from PTSD. But it granted him benefits only from the date of his motion to reopen, rather than (as he requested) from the date of his first application.
The Board of Veterans' Appeals-a part of the VA, represented in Kisor's case by a single administrative judge-affirmed that timing decision, based on its interpretation of an agency rule. Under the VA's regulation, the agency could grant Kisor retroactive benefits if it found there were "relevant official service department records" that it had not considered in its initial denial. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1) (2013). The Board acknowledged that Kisor had come up with two new service records, both confirming his participation in Operation Harvest Moon. But according to the Board, those records were not "relevant" because they did not go to the reason for the denial-that Kisor did not have PTSD. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 43a ("[The] documents were not relevant to the decision in May 1983 because the basis of the denial was that a diagnosis of PTSD was not warranted, not a dispute as to whether or not the Veteran engaged in combat"). The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, an independent Article I court that initially reviews the Board's decisions, affirmed for the same reason.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also affirmed, but it did so based on deference to the Board's interpretation of the VA rule. See Kisor v. Shulkin, 869 F.3d 1360, 1368 (2017). Kisor had argued to the Federal Circuit that to count as "relevant," a service record need not (as the Board thought) "counter[ ] the basis of the prior denial"; instead, it could relate to some other criterion for obtaining disability benefits. Id., at 1366 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Federal Circuit found the regulation "ambiguous" as between the two readings. Id., at 1367. The rule, said the court, does not specifically address "whether'relevant' records are those casting doubt on the agency's prior [rationale or] those relating to the veteran's claim more broadly." Ibid. So how to choose between the two views? The court continued: "Both parties insist that the plain regulatory language supports their case, and neither party's position strikes us as unreasonable." Id., at 1368. Because that was so, the court believed Auer deference appropriate: The agency's construction of its own regulation would govern unless "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the VA's regulatory framework." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying that standard, the court upheld the Board's reading-and so approved the denial of retroactive benefits.
We then granted certiorari to decide whether to overrule Auer and (its predecessor) Seminole Rock. 586 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 657, 202 L.Ed.2d 491 (2018).
II
Before addressing that question directly, we spend some time describing what Auer deference is, and is not, for. You might view this Part as "just background" because we have made many of its points in prior decisions. But even if so, it is background that matters. For our account of why the doctrine emerged-and also how we have limited it-goes a long way toward explaining our view that it is worth preserving.
A
Begin with a familiar problem in administrative law: For various reasons, regulations may be genuinely ambiguous. They may not directly or clearly address every issue; when applied to some fact patterns, they may prove susceptible to more than one reasonable reading. Sometimes, this sort of ambiguity arises from careless drafting-the use of a dangling modifier, an awkward word, an opaque construction. But often, ambiguity reflects the well-known limits of expression or knowledge. The subject matter of a rule "may be so specialized and varying in nature as to be impossible"-or at any rate, impracticable-to capture in its every detail. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 203, 67 S.Ct. 1760, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947). Or a "problem[ ] may arise" that the agency, when drafting the rule, "could not [have] reasonably foresee[n]." Id., at 202, 67 S.Ct. 1760. Whichever the case, the result is to create real uncertainties about a regulation's meaning.
Consider these examples:
• In a rule issued to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Department of Justice requires theaters and stadiums to provide people with disabilities "lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public." 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, App. A, p. 563 (1996). Must the Washington Wizards construct wheelchair seating to offer lines of sight over spectators when they rise to their feet? Or is it enough that the facility offers comparable views so long as everyone remains seated? See Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F.3d 579, 581-582 (CADC 1997).
• The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requires that liquids, gels, and aerosols in carry-on baggage be packed in containers smaller than 3.4 ounces and carried in a clear plastic bag. Does a traveler have to pack his jar of truffle pâté in that way? See Laba v. Copeland, 2016 WL 5958241, *1 (WDNC, Oct. 13, 2016).
• The Mine Safety and Health Administration issues a rule requiring employers to report occupational diseases within two weeks after they are "diagnosed." 30 C.F.R. § 50.20(a) (1993). Do chest X-ray results that "scor[e]" above some level of opacity count as a "diagnosis"? What level, exactly? See American Min. Congress v. Mine Safety and Health Admin., 995 F.2d 1106, 1107-1108 (CADC 1993).
• An FDA regulation gives pharmaceutical companies exclusive rights to drug products if they contain "no active moiety that has been approved by FDA in any other" new drug application. 21 C.F.R. § 314.108(a) (2010). Has a company created a new "active moiety" by joining a previously approved moiety to lysine through a non-ester covalent bond? See Actavis Elizabeth LLC v. FDA, 625 F.3d 760, 762-763 (CADC 2010) ; Tr. of Oral Arg. 12, 35.
• Or take the facts of Auer itself. An agency must decide whether police captains are eligible for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the agency's regulations, employees cannot receive overtime if they are paid on a "salary basis." 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a) (1996). And in deciding whether an employee is salaried, one question is whether his pay is "subject to reduction" based on performance. Ibid. A police department's manual informs its officers that their pay might be docked if they commit a disciplinary infraction. Does that fact alone make them "subject to" pay deductions? Or must the department have a practice of docking officer pay, so that the possibility of that happening is more than theoretical? 519 U.S. at 459-462, 117 S.Ct. 905.
In each case, interpreting the regulation involves a choice between (or among) more than one reasonable reading. To apply the rule to some unanticipated or unresolved situation, the court must make a judgment call. How should it do so?
In answering that question, we have often thought that a court should defer to the agency's construction of its own regulation. For the last 20 or so years, we have referred to that doctrine as Auer deference, and applied it often. But the name is something of a misnomer. Before the doctrine was called Auer deference, it was called Seminole Rock deference-for the 1945 decision in which we declared that when "the meaning of [a regulation] is in doubt," the agency's interpretation "becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." 325 U.S. at 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215.
And Seminole Rock itself was not built on sand. Deference to administrative agencies traces back to the late nineteenth century, and perhaps beyond. See United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331, 343, 18 S.Ct. 374, 42 L.Ed. 767 (1898) ("The interpretation given to the regulations by the department charged with their execution... is entitled to the greatest weight"); see Brief for Administrative Law Scholars as Amici Curiae 5, n. 3 (collecting early cases); Brief for AFL-CIO as Amicus Curiae 8 (same).
We have explained Auer deference (as we now call it) as rooted in a presumption about congressional intent-a presumption that Congress would generally want the agency to play the primary role in resolving regulatory ambiguities. See Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144, 151-153, 111 S.Ct. 1171, 113 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991). Congress, we have pointed out, routinely delegates to agencies the power to implement statutes by issuing rules. See id., at 151, 111 S.Ct. 1171. In doing so, Congress knows (how could it not?) that regulations will sometimes contain ambiguities. See supra, at 2410. But Congress almost never explicitly assigns responsibility to deal with that problem, either to agencies or to courts. Hence the need to presume, one way or the other, what Congress would want. And as between those two choices, agencies have gotten the nod. We have adopted the presumption-though it is always rebuttable-that "the power authoritatively to interpret its own regulations is a component of the agency's delegated lawmaking powers." Martin, 499 U.S. at 151, 111 S.Ct. 1171. Or otherwise said, we have thought that when granting rulemaking power to agencies, Congress usually intends to give them, too, considerable latitude to interpret the ambiguous rules they issue.
In part, that is because the agency that promulgated a rule is in the "better position [to] reconstruct" its original meaning. Id., at 152, 111 S.Ct. 1171. Consider that if you don't know what some text (say, a memo or an e-mail) means, you would probably want to ask the person who wrote it. And for the same reasons, we have thought, Congress would too (though the person is here a collective actor). The agency that "wrote the regulation" will often have direct insight into what that rule was intended to mean. Mullins Coal Co. of Va. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 484 U.S. 135, 159, 108 S.Ct. 427, 98 L.Ed.2d 450 (1987). The drafters will know what it was supposed to include or exclude or how it was supposed to apply to some problem. To be sure, this justification has its limits. It does not work so well, for example, when the agency failed to anticipate an issue in crafting a rule (e.g., if the agency never thought about whether and when chest X-rays would count as a "diagnosis"). See supra, at 2410. Then, the agency will not be uncovering a specific intention; at most (though this is not nothing), it will be offering insight into the analogous issues the drafters considered and the purposes they designed the regulation to serve. And the defense works yet less well when lots of time has passed between the rule's issuance and its interpretation-especially if the interpretation differs from one that has come before. All that said, the point holds good for a significant category of "contemporaneous" readings. Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926, 939, 106 S.Ct. 2333, 90 L.Ed.2d 921 (1986). Want to know what a rule means? Ask its author.
In still greater measure, the presumption that Congress intended Auer deference stems from the awareness that resolving genuine regulatory ambiguities often "entail[s] the exercise of judgment grounded in policy concerns." Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381, 129 L.Ed.2d 405 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Return to our TSA example. See supra, at 2410. In most of their applications, terms like "liquids" and "gels" are clear enough. (Traveler checklist: Pretzels OK; water not.) But resolving the uncertain issues-the truffle pâtés or olive tapenades of the world-requires getting in the weeds of the rule's policy: Why does TSA ban liquids and gels in the first instance? What makes them dangerous? Can a potential hijacker use pâté jars in the same way as soda cans? Or take the less specialized-seeming ADA example. See supra, at 2410. It is easy enough to know what "comparable lines of sight" means in a movie theater-but more complicated when, as in sports arenas, spectators sometimes stand up. How costly is it to insist that the stadium owner take that sporadic behavior into account, and is the viewing value received worth the added expense? That cost-benefit calculation, too, sounds more in policy than in law. Or finally, take the more technical "moiety" example. See supra, at 2410 - 2411. Or maybe, don't. If you are a judge, you probably have no idea of what the FDA's rule means, or whether its policy is implicated when a previously approved moiety is connected to lysine through a non-ester covalent bond.
And Congress, we have thought, knows just that: It is attuned to the comparative advantages of agencies over courts in making such policy judgments. Agencies (unlike courts) have "unique expertise," often of a scientific or technical nature, relevant to applying a regulation "to complex or changing circumstances." Martin, 499 U.S. at 151, 111 S.Ct. 1171 ; see Thomas Jefferson, 512 U.S. at 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381. Agencies (unlike courts) can conduct factual investigations, can consult with affected parties, can consider how their experts have handled similar issues over the long course of administering a regulatory program. See Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 167-168, 127 S.Ct. 2339, 168 L.Ed.2d 54 (2007). And agencies (again unlike courts) have political accountability, because they are subject to the supervision of the President, who in turn answers to the public. See Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 499, 130 S.Ct. 3138, 177 L.Ed.2d 706 (2010) ; Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U.S. 680, 696, 111 S.Ct. 2524, 115 L.Ed.2d 604 (1991) (discussing as a matter of democratic accountability the "proper roles of the political and judicial branches" in filling regulatory gaps). It is because of those features that Congress, when first enacting a statute, assigns rulemaking power to an agency and thus authorizes it to fill out the statutory scheme. And so too, when new issues demanding new policy calls come up within that scheme, Congress presumably wants the same agency, rather than any court, to take the laboring oar.
Finally, the presumption we use reflects the well-known benefits of uniformity in interpreting genuinely ambiguous rules. We have noted Congress's frequent "preference for resolving interpretive issues by uniform administrative decision, rather than piecemeal by litigation." Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555, 568, 100 S.Ct. 790, 63 L.Ed.2d 22 (1980). That preference may be strongest when the interpretive issue arises in the context of a "complex and highly technical regulatory program." Thomas Jefferson, 512 U.S. at 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381. After all, judges are most likely to come to divergent conclusions when they are least likely to know what they are doing. (Is there anything to be said for courts all over the country trying to figure out what makes for a new active moiety?) But the uniformity justification retains some weight even for more accessible rules, because their language too may give rise to more than one eminently reasonable reading. Consider Auer itself. See supra, at 2411 - 2412. There, four Circuits held that police captains were "subject to" pay deductions for disciplinary infractions if a police manual said they were, even if the department had never docked anyone. Two other Circuits held that captains were "subject to" pay deductions only if the department's actual practice made that punishment a realistic possibility. See Auer, 519 U.S. at 460, 117 S.Ct. 905. Had the agency issued an interpretation before all those rulings (rather than, as actually happened, in a brief in this Court), a deference rule would have averted most of that conflict and uncertainty. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142, 158, n. 17, 132 S.Ct. 2156, 183 L.Ed.2d 153 (2012) (noting for this reason that Auer deference imparts "predictability to the administrative process" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Auer deference thus serves to ensure consistency in federal regulatory law, for everyone who needs to know what it requires.
B
But all that said, Auer deference is not the answer to every question of interpreting an agency's rules. Far from it. As we explain in this section, the possibility of deference can arise only if a regulation is genuinely ambiguous. And when we use that term, we mean it-genuinely ambiguous, even after a court has resorted to all the standard tools of interpretation. Still more, not all reasonable agency constructions of those truly ambiguous rules are entitled to deference. As just explained, we presume that Congress intended for courts to defer to agencies when they interpret their own ambiguous rules. See supra, at 2411 - 2414. But when the reasons for that presumption do not apply, or countervailing reasons outweigh them, courts should not give deference to an agency's reading, except to the extent it has the "power to persuade." Christopher, 567 U.S. at 159, 132 S.Ct. 2156 (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944) ). We have thus cautioned that Auer deference is just a "general rule"; it "does not apply in all cases." Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155, 132 S.Ct. 2156. And although the limits of Auer deference are not susceptible to any rigid test, we have noted various circumstances in which such deference is "unwarranted." Ibid. In particular, that will be so when a court concludes that an interpretation does not reflect an agency's authoritative, expertise-based, "fair[, or] considered judgment." Ibid. (quoting Auer, 519 U.S. at 462, 117 S.Ct. 905 ); cf. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229-231, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) (adopting a similar approach to Chevron deference).
We take the opportunity to restate, and somewhat expand on, those principles here to clear up some mixed messages we have sent. At times, this Court has applied Auer deference without significant analysis of the underlying regulation. See, e.g., United States v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, 872, 97 S.Ct. 2150, 53 L.Ed.2d 48 (1977) (stating that the Court "need not tarry" over the regulation's language given Seminole Rock ). At other times, the Court has given Auer deference without careful attention to the nature and context of the interpretation.
See, e.g., Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 276, and nn. 22-23, 89 S.Ct. 518, 21 L.Ed.2d 474 (1969) (deferring to an agency's view as expressed in letters to third parties). And in a vacuum, our most classic formulation of the test-whether an agency's construction is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation," Seminole Rock, 325 U.S. at 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215 -may suggest a caricature of the doctrine, in which deference is "reflexive." Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U. S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 2105, 2120, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018) (KENNEDY, J., concurring). So we cannot deny that Kisor has a bit of grist for his claim that Auer "bestows on agencies expansive, unreviewable" authority. Brief for Petitioner 25. But in fact Auer does no such thing: It gives agencies their due, while also allowing-indeed, obligating-courts to perform their reviewing and restraining functions. So before we turn to Kisor's specific grievances, we think it worth reinforcing some of the limits inherent in the Auer doctrine.
First and foremost, a court should not afford Auer deference unless the regulation is genuinely ambiguous. See Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 588, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 146 L.Ed.2d 621 (2000) ; Seminole Rock, 325 U.S. at 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215 (deferring only "if the meaning of the words used is in doubt"). If uncertainty does not exist, there is no plausible reason for deference. The regulation then just means what it means-and the court must give it effect, as the court would any law. Otherwise said, the core theory of Auer deference is that sometimes the law runs out, and policy-laden choice is what is left over. See supra, at 2412 - 2413. But if the law gives an answer-if there is only one reasonable construction of a regulation-then a court has no business deferring to any other reading, no matter how much the agency insists it would make more sense. Deference in that circumstance would "permit the agency, under the guise of interpreting a regulation, to create de facto a new regulation." See Christensen, 529 U.S. at 588, 120 S.Ct. 1655. Auer does not, and indeed could not, go that far.
And before concluding that a rule is genuinely ambiguous, a court must exhaust all the "traditional tools" of construction. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) (adopting the same approach for ambiguous statutes). For again, only when that legal toolkit is empty and the interpretive question still has no single right answer can a judge conclude that it is "more [one] of policy than of law." Pauley, 501 U.S. at 696, 111 S.Ct. 2524. That means a court cannot wave the ambiguity flag just because it found the regulation impenetrable on first read. Agency regulations can sometimes make the eyes glaze over. But hard interpretive conundrums, even relating to complex rules, can often be solved. See id., at 707, 111 S.Ct. 2524 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (A regulation is not ambiguous merely because "discerning the only possible interpretation requires a taxing inquiry"). To make that effort, a court must "carefully consider[ ]" the text, structure, history, and purpose of a regulation, in all the ways it would if it had no agency to fall back on. Ibid. Doing so will resolve many seeming ambiguities out of the box, without resort to Auer deference.
If genuine ambiguity remains, moreover, the agency's reading must still be "reasonable." Thomas Jefferson, 512 U.S. at 515, 114 S.Ct. 2381. In other words, it must come within the zone of ambiguity the court has identified after employing all its interpretive tools. (Note that serious application of those tools therefore has use even when a regulation turns out to be truly ambiguous. The text, structure, history, and so forth at least establish the outer bounds of permissible interpretation.) Some courts have thought (perhaps because of Seminole Rock's "plainly erroneous" formulation) that at this stage of the analysis, agency constructions of rules receive greater deference than agency constructions of statutes. See, e.g., Ohio Dept. of Medicaid v. Price, 864 F.3d 469, 477 (CA6 2017). But that is not so. Under Auer, as under Chevron, the agency's reading must fall "within the bounds of reasonable interpretation." Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 296, 133 S.Ct. 1863, 185 L.Ed.2d 941 (2013). And let there be no mistake: That is a requirement an agency can fail.
Still, we are not done-for not every reasonable agency reading of a genuinely ambiguous rule should receive Auer deference. We have recognized in applying Auer that a court must make an independent inquiry into whether the character and context of the agency interpretation entitles it to controlling weight. See Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155, 132 S.Ct. 2156 ; see also Mead, 533 U.S. at 229-231, 236-237, 121 S.Ct. 2164 (requiring an analogous though not identical inquiry for Chevron deference). As explained above, we give Auer deference because we presume, for a set of reasons relating to the comparative attributes of courts and agencies, that Congress would have wanted us to. See supra, at 2411 - 2414. But the administrative realm is vast and varied, and we have understood that such a presumption cannot always hold. Cf. Mead, 533 U.S. at 236, 121 S.Ct. 2164 ("tailor[ing] deference to [the] variety" of administrative action); Arlington, 569 U.S. at 309-310, 133 S.Ct. 1863 (BREYER, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (noting that "context-specific[ ] factors" may show that "Congress would [not] have intended the agency to resolve [some] ambiguity"). The inquiry on this dimension does not reduce to any exhaustive test. But we have laid out some especially important markers for identifying when Auer deference is and is not appropriate.
To begin with, the regulatory interpretation must be one actually made by the agency. In other words, it must be the agency's "authoritative" or "official position," rather than any more ad hoc statement not reflecting the agency's views. Mead, 533 U.S. at 257-259, and n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 2164 (SCALIA, J., dissenting). That constraint follows from the logic of Auer deference-because Congress has delegated rulemaking power, and all that typically goes with it, to the agency alone. Of course, the requirement of "authoritative" action must recognize a reality of bureaucratic life: Not everything the agency does comes from, or is even in the name of, the Secretary or his chief advisers. So, for example, we have deferred to "official staff memoranda" that were "published in the Federal Register," even though never approved by the agency head. Ford Motor Credit, 444 U.S. at 566, n. 9, 567, n. 10, 100 S.Ct. 790 (declining to "draw a radical distinction between" agency heads and staff for Auer deference). But there are limits. The interpretation must at the least emanate from those actors, using those vehicles, understood to make authoritative policy in the relevant context. See, e.g., Paralyzed Veterans, 117 F.3d at 587 (refusing to consider a "speech of a mid-level official" as an "authoritative departmental position"); N. Y. State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bowen, 835 F.2d 360, 365-366 (CADC 1987) (rejecting the idea that an "informal memorandum" recounting a telephone conversation between employees could count as an "authoritative pronouncement"); Exelon Generation Co. v. Local 15, Int'l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 676 F.3d 566, 576-578 (CA7 2012) (declining deference when the agency had itself "disclaimed the use of regulatory guides as authoritative"). If the interpretation does not do so, a court may not defer.
Next, the agency's interpretation must in some way implicate its substantive expertise. Administrative knowledge and experience largely "account [for] the presumption that Congress delegates interpretive lawmaking power to the agency." Martin, 499 U.S. at 153, 111 S.Ct. 1171. So the basis for deference ebbs when "[t]he subject matter of the [dispute is] distan[t] from the agency's ordinary" duties or "fall[s] within the scope of another agency's authority." Arlington, 569 U.S. at 309, 133 S.Ct. 1863 (opinion of BREYER, J.). This Court indicated as much when it analyzed a "split enforcement" scheme, in which Congress divided regulatory power between two entities. Martin, 499 U.S. at 151, 111 S.Ct. 1171. To decide "whose reasonable interpretation" of a rule controlled, we "presum[ed] Congress intended to invest interpretive power" in whichever actor was "best position[ed] to develop" expertise about the given problem. Id., at 149, 153, 111 S.Ct. 1171. The same idea holds good as between agencies and courts. "Generally, agencies have a nuanced understanding of the regulations they administer." Brief for Respondent 33. That point is most obvious when a rule is technical; think back to our "moiety" or "diagnosis" examples. See supra, at 2410 - 2411. But more prosaic-seeming questions also commonly implicate policy expertise; consider the TSA assessing the security risks of pâté or a disabilities office weighing the costs and benefits of an accommodation. See ibid. Once again, though, there are limits. Some interpretive issues may fall more naturally into a judge's bailiwick. Take one requiring the elucidation of a simple common-law property term, see Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. FERC, 578 F.2d 289, 292-293 (CA10 1978), or one concerning the award of an attorney's fee, see West Va. Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Norton, 343 F.3d 239 (CA4 2003). Cf. Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638, 649-650, 110 S.Ct. 1384, 108 L.Ed.2d 585 (1990) (declining to award Chevron deference when an agency interprets a judicial-review provision). When the agency has no comparative expertise in resolving a regulatory ambiguity, Congress presumably would not grant it that authority.
Finally, an agency's reading of a rule must reflect "fair and considered judgment" to receive Auer deference. Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155, 132 S.Ct. 2156 (quoting Auer, 519 U.S. at 462, 117 S.Ct. 905 ). That means, we have stated, that a court should decline to defer to a merely "convenient litigating position" or "post hoc rationalizatio[n] advanced" to "defend past agency action against attack." Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155, 132 S.Ct. 2156 (quoting Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hospital,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
State courts rather than federal courts are most frequently called upon to apply the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., including the Act’s national policy favoring arbitration. It is a matter of great importance, therefore, that state supreme courts adhere to a correct interpretation of the legislation. Here, the Oklahoma Supreme Court failed to do so. By declaring the non-competition agreements in two employment contracts null and void, rather than leaving that determination to the arbitrator in the first instance, the state court ignored a basic tenet of the Act’s substantive arbitration law. The decision must be vacated.
* * *
This dispute arises from a contract between petitioner Nitro-Lift Technologies, L. L. C., and two of its former employees. Nitro-Lift contracts with operators of oil and gas wells to provide services that enhance production. Respondents Eddie Lee Howard and Shane D. Schneider entered a confidentiality and noncompetition agreement with Nitro-Lift that contained the following arbitration clause:
“‘Any dispute, difference or unresolved question between Nitro-Lift and the Employee (collectively the “Disputing Parties”) shall be settled by arbitration by a single arbitrator mutually agreeable to the Disputing Parties in an arbitration proceeding conducted in Houston, Texas in accordance with the rules existing at the date hereof of the American Arbitration Association.’” Pet. for Cert. 5.
After working for Nitro-Lift on wells in Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas, respondents quit and began working for one of Nitro-Lift’s competitors. Claiming that respondents had breached their noncompetition agreements, Nitro-Lift served them with a demand for arbitration. Respondents then filed suit in the District Court of Johnston County, Oklahoma, asking the court to declare the noncompetition agreements null and void and to enjoin their enforcement. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that the contracts contained valid arbitration clauses under which an arbitrator, and not the court, must settle the parties’ disagreement.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained respondents’ appeal and ordered the parties to show cause why the matter should not be resolved by application of Okla. Stat., Tit. 15, §219A (West 2011), which limits the enforceability of non-competition agreements. Nitro-Lift argued that any dispute as to the contracts’ enforceability was a question for the arbitrator. It relied for support— as it had done before the trial court—upon several of this Court’s cases interpreting the FAA, and noted that under Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U. S. 440, 446 (2006), “this arbitration law applies in both state and federal courts.” Record in No. 109,003 (Okla.), p. 273.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court was not persuaded. It held that despite the “[U. SJ Supreme Court cases on which the employers rely,” the “existence of an arbitration agreement in an employment contract does not prohibit judicial review of the underlying agreement.” 2011 OK 98, ¶15, n. 20, ¶ 16, 273 P. 3d 20, 26, n. 20, 27. For that proposition, the court relied on the “exhaustive overview of the United States Supreme Court decisions construing the Federal Arbitration Act” in Bruner v. Timberlane Manor Ltd. Partnership, 2006 OK 90, 155 P. 3d 16, which found Supreme Court jurisprudence “not to inhibit our review of the underlying contract’s validity.” 273 P. 3d, at 26. Finding the arbitration clauses no obstacle to its review, the court held that the noncompetition agreements were “void and unenforceable as against Oklahoma’s public policy,” expressed in Okla. Stat., Tit. 15, § 219A. 273 P. 3d, at 27.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court declared that its decision rests on adequate and independent state grounds. Id., at 23-24, n. 5. If that were so, we would have no jurisdiction over this case. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1037-1044 (1983). It is not so, however, because the court’s reliance on Oklahoma law was not “independent”—it necessarily depended upon a rejection of the federal claim, which was both “‘properly presented to’” and ‘“addressed by’” the state court. Howell v. Mississippi, 543 U. S. 440, 443 (2005) (per curiam) (quoting Adams v. Robertson, 520 U. S. 83, 86 (1997) (per curiam)). Nitro-Lift claimed that the arbitrator should decide the contract’s validity, and raised a federal-law basis for that claim by relying on Supreme Court cases construing the FA A. “‘[A] litigant wishing to raise a federal issue can easily indicate the federal law basis for his claim in a state-court petition or brief ... by citing in conjunction with the claim the federal source of law on which he relies or a case deciding such a claim on federal grounds Howell, supra, at 444 (quoting Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U. S. 27, 32 (2004); emphasis added). The Oklahoma Supreme Court acknowledged the cases on which Nitro-Lift relied, as well as their relevant holdings, but chose to discount these controlling decisions. Its conclusion that, despite this Court’s jurisprudence, the underlying contract’s validity is purely a matter of state law for state-court determination is all the more reason for this Court to assert jurisdiction.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision disregards this Court’s precedents on the FAA. That Act, which “declare[s] a national policy favoring arbitration,” Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1, 10 (1984), provides that a “written provision in ... a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction ... 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. It is well settled that “the substantive law the Act created [is] applicable in state and federal courts.” Southland Corp., supra, at 12; see also Buckeye, supra, at 446. And when parties commit to arbitrate contractual disputes, it is a mainstay of the Act’s substantive law that attacks on the validity of the contract, as distinct from attacks on the validity of the arbitration clause itself, are to be resolved “by the arbitrator in the first instance, not by a federal or state court.” Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U. S. 346, 349 (2008); see also Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 396 (1967). For these purposes, an “arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract,” Buckeye, supra, at 445, and its validity is subject to initial court determination; but the validity of the remainder of the contract (if the arbitration provision is valid) is for the arbitrator to decide.
This principle requires that the decision below be vacated. The trial court found that the contract contained a valid arbitration clause, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court did not hold otherwise. It nonetheless assumed the arbitrator’s role by declaring the noncompetition agreements null and void. The state court insisted that its “[own] jurisprudence controls this issue” and permits review of a “contract submitted to arbitration where one party assertfe] that the underlying agreement [is] void and unenforceable.” 273 P. 3d, at 26. But the Oklahoma Supreme Court must abide by the FAA, which is “the supreme Law of the Land,” U. S. Const., Art. VI, el. 2, and by the opinions of this Court interpreting that law. “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.” Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U. S. 298, 312 (1994). Our cases hold that the FAA forecloses precisely this type of “judicial hostility towards arbitration.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333, 342 (2011).
The state court reasoned that Oklahoma’s statute “addressing the validity of covenants not to compete, must govern over the more general statute favoring arbitration.” 273 P. 3d, at 26, n. 21. But the ancient interpretive principle that the specific governs the general (generalia specialibus non derogant) applies only to conflict between laws of equivalent dignity. Where a specific statute, for example, conflicts with a general constitutional provision, the latter governs. And the same is true where a specific state statute conflicts with a general federal statute. There is no general-specific exception to the Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. “ ‘[WJhen state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting rule is displaced by the FA A.’” Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, 565 U. S. 530, 533 (2012) (per curiam) (quoting AT&T Mobility LLC, supra, at 341). Hence, it is for the arbitrator to decide in the first instance whether the covenants not to compete are valid as a matter of applicable state law. See Buckeye, 546 U. S., at 445-446.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is vacated, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has certified to this Court the following three questions:
“(1) Has Congress created in the Court of Appeals, as a court, the jurisdiction to issue a certificate of probable cause, sought from the court, as a court, by the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 2253, replacing the repealed 28 U. S. C. § 466?
“(2) If the Supreme Court holds that Congress has not given the Courts of Appeal such jurisdiction, did the Supreme Court create that jurisdiction, by its per curiam opinion, rendered without argument, which failed to consider 28 U. S. C. § 2253 and was based on the repealed 28 U. S. C. § 466 and House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42, 48 (1945), and its remand to this court ‘so that the petitioner’s application for a certificate of probable cause may be entertained on its merits’?
“(3) If the Supreme Court holds that Congress or the Court creates such jurisdiction by 28 U. S. C. § 2253 and that House v. Mayo applies, does its mandate mean that all the judges, as judges, or some individual judge, or the court as a court shall consider the petition for a certificate of probable cause?”
Earlier this Term we were constrained to find that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was in error in deeming itself without jurisdiction to entertain applications for certificates of probable cause, under 28 U. S. C. § 2253, addressed to that court instead of to a judge or judges thereof. Accordingly, we reversed the judgments in these cases. Burwell v. Teets, 350 U. S. 808; Rogers v. Teets, 350 U. S. 809. Each of these cases was reversed “so that the petitioner’s application for a certificate of probable cause may be entertained on its merits.”
We did not attempt to lay down a procedure for the Court of Appeals to follow for the entertainment of such applications on their merits. We shall not do so now. It is for the Court of Appeals to determine whether such an application to the court is to be considered by a panel of the Court of Appeals, by one of its judges, or in some other way deemed appropriate by the Court of Appeals within the scope of its powers. Cf. Western Pacific R. Corp. v. Western Pacific R. Co., 345 U. S. 247. It is not for this Court to prescribe how the discretion vested in a Court of Appeals, acting under 28. U. S. C. § 2253, should be exercised. See United States v. Rosenburgh, 7 Wall. 580. As long, as that court keeps within the bounds of judicial discretion, its action is not reviewable.
The entire certificate in each of these cases must be
Dismissed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A common issue arising under the Tort Claims Act, as to which Courts of Appeals are in conflict, makes it appropriate to consider three cases in one opinion.
The Feres case: The District Court dismissed an action by the executrix of Feres against the United States to recover for death caused by negligence. Decedent perished by fire in the barracks at Pine Camp, New York, while on active duty in service of the United States. Negligence was alleged in quartering him in barracks known or which should have been known to be unsafe because of a defective heating plant, and in failing to maintain an adequate fire watch. The Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed.
The Jefferson case: Plaintiff, while in the Army, was required to undergo an abdominal operation. About eight months later, in the course of another operation after plaintiff was discharged, a towel 30 inches long by 18 inches wide, marked “Medical Department U. S. Army,” was discovered and removed from his stomach. The complaint alleged that it was negligently left there by the army surgeon. The District Court, being doubtful of the law, refused without prejudice the Government’s pretrial motion to dismiss the complaint. After trial, finding negligence as a fact, Judge Chesnut carefully reexamined the issue of law and concluded that the Act does not charge the United States with liability in this type of case. The Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed.
The Griggs case: The District Court dismissed the complaint of Griggs’ executrix, which alleged that while on active duty he met death because of negligent and unskillful medical treatment by army surgeons. The Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, reversed and, one judge dissenting, held that the complaint stated a cause of action under the Act.
The common fact underlying the three cases is that each claimant, while on active duty and not on furlough, sustained injury due to negligence of others in the armed forces. The only issue of law raised is whether the Tort Claims Act extends its remedy to one sustaining "incident to the service” what under other circumstances would be an actionable wrong. This is the “wholly different case” reserved from our decision in Brooks v. United States, 337 U. S. 49, 52.
There are few guiding materials for our task of statutory construction. No committee reports or floor debates disclose what effect the statute was designed to have on the problem before us, or that it even was in mind. Under these circumstances, no conclusion can be above challenge, but if we misinterpret the Act, at least Congress possesses a ready remedy.
We do not overlook considerations persuasive of liability in these cases. The Act does confer district court jurisdiction generally over claims for money damages against the United States founded on negligence. 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (b). It does contemplate that the Government will sometimes respond for negligence of military personnel, for it defines “employee of the Government” to include “members of the military or naval forces of the United. States,” and provides that “ ‘acting within the scope of his office or employment’, in the case of a member of the military or naval forces of the United States, means acting in line of duty.” 28 U. S. C. § 2671. Its exceptions might also imply inclusion of claims such as we have here. 28 U. S. C. § 2680 (j) excepts “any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war” (emphasis supplied), from which it is said we should infer allowance of claims arising from noncombat activities in peace. Section 2680 (k) excludes “any claim arising in a foreign country.” Significance also has been attributed in these cases, as in the Brooks case, supra, p. 51, to the fact that eighteen tort claims bills were introduced in Congress between 1925 and 1935 and all but two expressly denied recovery to members of the armed forces; but the bill enacted as the present Tort Claims Act from its introduction made no exception. We also are reminded that the Brooks case, in spite of its reservation of service-connected injuries, interprets the Act to cover claims not incidental to service, and it is argued that much of its reasoning is as apt to impose liability in favor of a man on duty as in favor of one on leave. These considerations, it is said, should persuade us to cast upon Congress, as author of the confusion, the task of qualifying and clarifying its language if the liability here asserted should prove so depleting of the public treasury as the Government fears.
This Act, however, should be construed to fit, so far as will comport with its words, into the entire statutory system of remedies against the Government to make a workable, consistent and equitable whole. The Tort Claims Act was not an isolated and spontaneous flash of congressional generosity. It marks the culmination of a long effort to mitigate unjust consequences of sovereign immunity from suit. While the political theory that the King could do no wrong was repudiated in America, a legal doctrine derived from it that the Crown is immune from any suit to which it has not consented was invoked on behalf of the Republic and applied by our courts as vigorously as it had been on behalf of the Crown. As the Federal Government expanded its activities, its agents caused a multiplying number of remediless wrongs — wrongs which would have been actionable if inflicted by an individual or a corporation but remediless solely because their perpetrator was an officer or employee of the Government. Relief was often sought and sometimes granted through private bills in Congress, the number of which steadily increased as Government activity increased. The volume of these private bills, the inadequacy of congressional machinery for determination of facts, the importunities to which claimants subjected members of Congress, and the capricious results, led to a strong demand that claims for tort wrongs be submitted to adjudication. Congress already had waived immunity and made the Government answerable for breaches of its contracts and certain other types of claims. At last, in connection with the Reorganization Act, it waived immunity and transferred the burden of examining tort claims to the courts. The primary purpose of the Act was to extend a remedy to those who had been without; if it incidentally benefited those already well provided for, it appears to have been unintentional. Congress was suffering from no plague of private bills on the behalf of military and naval personnel, because a comprehensive system of relief had been authorized for them and their dependents by statute.
Looking to the detail of the Act, it is true that it provides, broadly, that the District Court “shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages . ...” This confers jurisdiction to render judgment upon all such claims. But it does not say that all claims must be allowed. Jurisdiction is necessary to deny a claim on its merits as matter of law as much as to adjudge that liability exists. We interpret this language to mean all its says, but no more. Jurisdiction of the defendant now exists where the. defendant was immune from suit before; it remains for courts, in exercise of their jurisdiction, to determine whether any claim is recognizable in law.
For this purpose, the Act goes on to prescribe the test of allowable claims, which is, “The United States shall be liable ... in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances . . .,” with certain exceptions not material here. 28 U. S. C. | 2674. It will be seen that this is not the creation of new causes of action but acceptance of liability under circumstances that would bring private liability into existence.- This, we think, embodies the same idea that its English equivalent enacted in 1947 (Crown Proceedings Act 1947; 10 and 11 Geo. VI, c. 44, p. 863). expressed, “Where any person has a claim against the Crown after the commencement of this Act, and, if this Act had not been passed, the claim might have been enforced, subject to the grant . . of consent to be sued, the claim may now be enforced without specific consent. One obvious shortcoming in these claims is that plaintiffs can point to no liability of a “private individual” even remotely analogous to that which they are asserting against the United States. We know of no American law which ever has permitted a soldier to recover for negligence, against either his superior officers or the Government he is serving. Nor is there any liability “under like circumstances,” for no private individual has power to conscript or mobilize a private army with such authorities over persons as the Government vests in echelons of command.' The nearest parallel, even if we were to treat “private individual” as including a state, would be the relationship between the states and their militia. But if we indulge plaintiffs the benefit of this comparison, claimants cite us no state, and we know of none, which has permitted members of its militia to maintain tort actions for injuries suffered in the service, and in at least one state the contrary has been held to be the case. It is true that if we consider relevant only a part of the circumstances and ignore the status of both the wronged and the wrongdoer in these cases we find analogous private liability. In the usual civilian doctor and patient relationship, there is of course a liability for malpractice. And a landlord would undoubtedly be held liable if an injury occurred to a tenant as the result of a negligently maintained heating plant. But the liability assumed by the Government here is that created by “all the circumstances,” not that which a few of the circumstances might create. We find no parallel liability before, and we think no new one has been created by, this Act. Its effect is to waive immunity from recognized causes of action and was not to visit the Government with novel and unprecedented liabilities.
It is not without significance as to whether the Act should be construed to apply to service-connected injuries that it makes “. . . the law of the place where the act or omission occurred” govern any consequent liability. 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (b). This provision recognizes and assimilates into federal law the rules of substantive law of the several states, among which divergencies are notorious. This perhaps is fair enough when the claimant is not on duty or is free to choose his own habitat and thereby limit the jurisdiction in which it will be possible for federal activities to cause him injury. That his tort claims should be governed by the law of the location where he has elected to be is just as fair when the defendant is the Government as when the defendant is a private individual. But a soldier on active duty has no such choice and must serve any place or, under modern conditions, any number of places in quick succession in the forty-eight states, the Canal Zone, or Alaska, or Hawaii, or any other territory of the United States. That the geography of an injury should select the law to be applied to his tort claims makes no sense. We cannot ignore the fact that most states have abolished the common-law action for damages between employer and employee and superseded it with workmen’s compensation statutes which provide, in most instances, the sole basis of liability. Absent this, or where such statutes are inapplicable, states have differing provisions as to limitations of liability and different doctrines as to assumption of risk, fellow-servant rules and contributory or comparative negligence. It would hardly be a rational plan of providing for those disabled in service by others in service to leave them dependent upon geographic considerations over which they have no control and to laws which fluctuate in existence and value.
The relationship between the Government and members of its armed forces is “distinctively federal in character,” as this Court recognized in United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U. S. 301, wherein the Government unsuccessfully sought to recover for losses incurred by virtue of injuries to a soldier. The considerations which lead to that decision apply with even greater force to this case:
. . To whatever extent state law may apply to govern the relations between soldiers or others in the armed forces and persons outside them or nonfederal governmental agencies, the scope, nature, legal incidents and consequences of the relation between persons in service and the Government are fundamentally derived from federal sources and governed by federal authority. See Tarble’s Case, 13 Wall. 397; Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487. . . .” Pp. 305-306.
No federal law recognizes a recovery such as claimants seek. The Military Personnel Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. § 223b (now superseded by 28 U. S. C. § 2672), permitted recovery in some circumstances, but it specifically excluded claims of military personnel “incident to their service.”
This Court, in deciding claims for wrongs incident to service under the Tort Claims Act, cannot escape attributing some bearing upon it to enactments by Congress which provide systems of simple, certain, and uniform compensation for injuries or death of those in armed services. We might say that the claimant may (a) enjoy both types of recovery, or (b) elect which to pursue, thereby waiving the other, or (c) pursue both, crediting the larger liability with the proceeds of the smaller, or (d) that the compensation and pension remedy excludes the tort remedy. There is as much statutory authority for one as for another of these conclusions. If Congress had contemplated that this Tort Act would be held to apply in cases of this kind, it is difficult to see why it should have omitted any provision to adjust these two types of remedy to each other. The absence of any such adjustment is persuasive that there was no awareness that the Act might be interpreted to permit recovery for injuries incident to military service.
A soldier is at peculiar disadvantage in litigation. Lack of time and money, the difficulty if not impossibility of procuring witnesses, are only a few of the factors working to his disadvantage. And the few cases charging superior officers or the Government with neglect or misconduct which have been brought since the Tort Claims Act, of which the present are typical, have either been suits by widows or surviving dependents, or have been brought after the individual was discharged. The compensation system, which normally requires no litigation, is not negligible or niggardly, as these cases demonstrate. The recoveries compare extremely favorably with those provided by most workmen’s compensation statutes. In the Jefferson case, the District Court considered actual and prospective payments by the Veterans’ Administration as diminution of the verdict. Plaintiff received $3,645.50 to the date of the court’s computation and on estimated life expectancy under existing legislation would prospectively receive $31,947 in addition. In the Griggs case, the widow, in the two-year period after her husband’s death, received payments in excess of $2,100. In addition, she received $2,695, representing the six months’ death gratuity under the Act of December 17, 1919, as amended, 41 Stat. 367, 57 Stat. 599, 10 U. S. C. § 903. It is estimated that her total future pension payments will aggregate $18,000. Thus the widow will receive an amount in excess of $22,000 from Government gratuities, whereas she sought and could seek under state law only $15,000, the maximum permitted by Illinois for death.
It is contended that all these considerations were before the Court in the Brooks case and that allowance of recovery to Brooks requires a similar holding of liability here. The actual holding in the Brooks case can support liability here only by ignoring the vital distinction there stated. The injury to Brooks did not arise out of or in the course of military duty. Brooks was on furlough, driving along the highway, Under compulsion of no orders or duty and on no military mission. A government owned and operated vehicle collided with him. Brooks’ father, riding in the same car, recovered for his injuries and the Government did not further contest the judgment but contended that there could be no liability to the sons, solely because they were in the Army. This Court rejected the contention, primarily because Brooks’ relationship while on leave was not analogous to that of a soldier injured while performing duties under orders.
We conclude that the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service. Without exception, the relationship of military personnel to the Government has been governed exclusively by federal law. We do not think that Congress, in drafting this Act, created a new cause of action dependent on local law for service-connected injuries or death due to negligence. We cannot impute to Congress such a radical departure from established law in the absence of express congressional command. Accordingly, the judgments in the Feres and Jefferson cases are affirmed and that in the Origgs case is reversed.
Nos. 9 and 29, affirmed.
No. 31, reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas concurs in the result.
177 F. 2d 535.
74 F. Supp. 209.
77 F. Supp. 706.
178 F. 2d 518.
178 F. 2d 1.
The Crown has recently submitted itself to suit, see post, p. 141.
United States v. McLemore, 4 How. 286; Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272, 290; Ickes v. Fox, 300 U. S. 82, 96.
28 U. S. C. §1491.
28 U. S. C. § 1346 (b). The provisions of the Tort Claims Act are now found in Title 28, §§ 1291, 1346, 1402, 1504, 2110, 2401, 2402, 2411, 2412, 2671-2680. In recodifying Title 28 of the United States Code, changes in language were made. The Tort Claims Act, as originally enacted, 60 Stat. 843, provided in § 410 that the District Court “shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on any claim against the United States, for money only (Emphasis supplied.) We attribute to this change of language no substantive change of law.
Cf. Dinsman v. Wilkes, 12 How. 390, and Weaver v. Ward, Hobart 135, 80 Eng. Rep. 284 (1616), as to intentional torts.
Goldstein v. New York, 281 N. Y. 396, 24 N. E. 2d 97.
48 Stat. 8 (1933), as amended, 38 U. S. C. § 701 (1946); 48 Stat. 11 (1933), as amended, 38 U. S. C. § 718 (1946); 55 Stat. 608 (1941), 38 U. S. C. § 725 (1946); 57 Stat. 558 (1943), as amended, 38 U. S. C. §731 (1946); 62 Stat. 1219, 1220 (1948), 38 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) §§740,741 (1950).
Relief was provided in the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1178, 50 U. S. C. App. § 501 et seq.
Brooks v. United States, supra (discharged at time of suit); Santana v. United States, 175 F. 2d 320 (C. A. 1st Cir.) (suit by sole heirs); Ostrander v. United States, 178 F. 2d 923 (C. A. 2d Cir.) (suit by widow); Samson v. United States, 79 F. Supp. 406 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.) (suit by administrator); Alansky v. Northwest Airlines, 77 F. Supp. 556 (D. C. D. Mont.) (suit by widow and son).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 HCSC-Laundry is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation. It was organized in 1967 under the law of that Commonwealth “[t]o operate and maintain a hospital laundry and linen supply program for those public hospitals and non-profit hospitals or related health facilities organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, or educational purposes that contract with [it].”
Petitioner provides laundry and linen service to 15 nonprofit hospitals and to an ambulance service. All these are located in eastern Pennsylvania. Each organization served possesses a certificate of exemption from federal income taxation under § 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 501 (c)(3). Each participating hospital pays petitioner annual membership dues based upon bed capacity. The ambulance service pays no dues. Petitioner’s only other income is derived from (a) a charge for laundry and linen service based upon budgeted costs and (b) a charge of 1% cents per pound of laundry. Budgeted costs include operating expenses, debt retirement, and linen replacement. The amounts charged in excess of costs have been placed in a fund for equipment acquisition and replacement.
No part of petitioner’s net earnings inures to the benefit of any individual.
Petitioner was formed after the Lehigh Valley Health Planning Council determined that a shared, nonprofit, off-premises laundry would best accommodate the requirements of the member hospitals with respect to both quality of service and economies of scale. The Council had investigated various alternatives. It had rejected a joint service concept because no member hospital had sufficient laundry facilities to serve more than itself. A commercial laundry had declined an offer for the laundry business of all the hospitals, and most of the other available commercial laundries were not capable of managing the heavy total volume.
Petitioner’s laundry plant was built and equipped at a cost of about $2 million. This was financed through loans from local banks, with 15-year contracts from 10 of the hospitals used as collateral. Petitioner employs approximately 125 persons.
In 1976, petitioner applied for exemption under § 501 (c) (3) from federal income taxation. The Internal Revenue Service denied the exemption application on the grounds that § 501 (e) of the Code was the exclusive provision under which a cooperative hospital service organization could qualify as “an organization organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes” and therefore exempt. Because subsection (e)(1) (A) does not mention laundry, the Service reasoned that petitioner was not entitled to tax exemption.
Petitioner duly filed its federal corporate income tax return for its fiscal year ended June 30, 1976. That return showed taxable income of $123,521 and a tax of $10,395. The tax was paid. Shortly thereafter, petitioner filed a claim for refund of that tax and, when the Internal Revenue Service took no action on the claim within six months, see 26 U. S. C. § 6532 (a)(1), petitioner commenced this refund suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On stipulated facts and cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled in favor of petitioner, holding that it was entitled to exemption as an organization described in § 501 (c) (3). 473 F. Supp. 250 (1979). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, however, reversed. It held that § 501 (e) was the exclusive provision under which a cooperative hospital service organization could obtain an income tax exemption, and that the omission of laundry services from § 501 (e)(l)(A)’s specific list of activities demonstrated that Congress intended to deny exempt status to cooperative hospital service laundries. 624 F. 2d 428 (1980).
Because the ruling of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with decisions elsewhere, we grant certiorari, and we now affirm.
This Court has said: “The starting point in the determination of the scope of 'gross income’ is the cardinal principle that Congress in creating the income tax intended 'to use the full measure of its taxing power.’ ” Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U. S. 77, 82 (1977), quoting from Helvering v. Cliford, 309 U. S. 331, 334 (1940). See § 61 (a) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 61 (a). Under our system of federal income taxation, therefore, every element of gross income of a person, corporate or individual, is subject to tax unless there is a statute or some rule of law that exempts that person or element.
Sections 501 (a) and (c) (3) provide such an exemption, and a complete one, for a corporation fitting the description set forth in subsection (c) (3) and fulfilling the subsection’s requirements. But subsection (e) is also a part of § 501. And it expressly concerns the tax status of a cooperative hospital service organization. It provides that such an organization is exempt if, among other things, its activities consist of “data processing, purchasing, warehousing, billing and collection, food, clinical, industrial engineering, laboratory, printing, communications, record center, and personnel (including selection, testing, training, and education of personnel) services.” Laundry and linen service, so essential to a hospital’s operation, is not included in that list and, indeed, is noticeable for its absence. The issue, thus, is whether that omission prohibits petitioner from qualifying under § 501 as an organization exempt from taxation. The Government’s position is that subsection (e) is controlling and exclusive, and because petitioner does not qualify under it, exemption is not available. Petitioner takes the opposing position that § 501 (c) (3) clearly entitles it to the claimed exemption.
Without reference to the legislative history, the Government would appear to have the benefit of this skirmish, for it is a basic principle of statutory construction that a specific statute, here subsection (e), controls over a general provision such as subsection (c)(3), particularly when the two are interrelated and closely positioned, both in fact being parts of § 501 relating to exemption of organizations from tax. See Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U. S. 753, 761 (1961).
Additionally, however, the legislative history provides strong and conclusive support for the Government’s position. It persuades us that Congress intended subsection (e) to be exclusive and controlling for cooperative hospital service organizations. Prior to the enactment of subsection (e) in 1968, the law as to the tax status of shared hospital service organizations was uncertain. The Internal Revenue Service took the position that if two or more tax-exempt hospitals created an entity to perform commercial services for them, that entity was not entitled to exemption. See Rev. Rul. 54-305, 1954-2 Cum. Bull. 127. See also § 502, as amended, of the 1954 Code, 26 U. S. C. § 502. This position, however, was rejected by the Court of Claims in Hospital Bureau of Standards and Supplies, Inc. v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 91, 158 F. Supp. 560 (1958). After expressly noting the uncertainty in the law, Congress enacted subsection (e). See Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-364, § 109 (a), 82 Stat. 269.
In considering the provisions of the tax adjustment bill of 1968 that ultimately became subsection (e), the Senate sought to include laundry in the list of services that a cooperative hospital service organization could provide and still maintain its tax-exempt status. The Treasury Department supported the Senate amendment. See 114 Cong. Rec. 7516, 8111-8112 (1968). At the urging of commercial interests, however (see Hearings on Certain Committee Amendments to H. R. 10612 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 608 (1976)), the Conference Committee would accept only a limited version of the Senate amendment. In recommending the adoption of subsection (e), the managers on the part of the House emphasized that shared hospital service organizations performing laundry services were not entitled to tax-exempt status under the new provision. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1533, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 43 (1968); Senate Committee on Finance and House Committee on Ways and Means, Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968, Explanation of the Bill H. R. 15414, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 1, 20 (Comm. Print 1968).
Later, in 1976, at the urging of the American Hospital Association, the Senate Committee on Finance proposed an amendment that would have added laundry to the list of services specified in subsection (e)(1)(A). Hearings on H. R. 10612 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 2765-2772 (1976); S. Rep. No. 94-938, pt. 2, pp. 76-77 (1976). The amendment, however, was defeated on the floor of the Senate. 122 Cong. Rec. 25915 (1976).
In view of all this, it seems to us beyond dispute that subsection (e)(1)(A) of § 501, despite the seemingly broad general language of subsection (c)(3), specifies the types of hospital service organizations that are encompassed within the scope of § 501 as charitable organizations. Inasmuch as laundry service was deliberately omitted from the statutory list and, indeed, specifically was refused inclusion in that list, it inevitably follows that petitioner is' not entitled to tax-exempt status. The Congress easily can change the statute whenever it is so inclined.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice White dissents and would set the case for plenary consideration.
The quoted language is from petitioner’s articles of incorporation, as amended May 29, 1970. The articles further state that petitioner’s corporate purposes are to be accomplished “in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 501 (c) (3) of the- Internal Revenue Code of 1954.” See 624 F. 2d 428, 429, n. 1 (CA3 1980).
Subsections (a) and (c) of §501, to the extent pertinent here, read: “(a) Exemption from taxation
“An organization described' in subsection (c) or (d) or section 401 (a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such exemption is denied under section 502 or 503.
“(c) List of exempt organizations
“The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):
“(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”
Section 501 (e) reads:
“(e) Cooperative hospital service organizations
“For purposes of this title, an organization shall be treated as an organization organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes, if—
“(1) such organization is organized and operated solely—
“(A) to perform, on a centralized basis, one or more of the following services which, if performed on its own behalf by a hospital which is an organization described in subsection • (c) (3) arid exempt from taxation under subsection (a), would constitute activities in exercising or performing the purpose or function constituting the basis for its exemption: data processing, purchasing, warehousing, bitting and collection, food, clinical, industrial engineering, laboratory, printing, communications, record center, and personnel (including selection, testing, training, and education of personnel) services; and
“(B) to perform such services solely for two or more hospitals each of which is—
“(i) an organization described in subsection (c) (3) which is exempt from taxation under subsection (a),
“(ii) a constituent part of an organization described in subsection (c) (3) which is exempt from taxation under subsection (a) and which, if organized and operated as a separate entity, would constitute an organization described in subsection (c)(3), or
“(iii) owned and operated by the United States, a State, the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States, or a political subdivision or an agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.”
Among the eases in conflict with the Third Circuit’s ruling are Northern California Central Services, Inc. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 60, 591 F. 2d 620 (1979), and United Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, 384 F. Supp. 776 (SD Ind. 1974). See also Chart, Inc. v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 10 (DC 1979) (appeals pending, Nos. 80-1138 and 80-1139 (CADC)).
Decisions in accord with the ruling of the Third Circuit include Hospital Central Services Assn. v. United States, 623 F. 2d 611 (CA9 1980), cert. denied, post, p. 911, and Metropolitan Detroit Area Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States, 634 F. 2d 330 (CA6 1980). See also Associated Hospital Services, Inc. v. Commissioner, 74 T. C. 213, 231 (1980) (reviewed by the court, with four dissents; appeal pending, No. 80-3596 (CA5)).
Since the enactment of subsection (e), the Internal Revenue Service has adhered to its view that laundry service provided by a cooperative hospital service organization is not entitled to exemption under § 501. See Rev. Rul. 69-160, 1969-1 Cum. Bull. 147; Rev. Rul. 69-633, 1969-2 Cum. Bull. 121.
See S. Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 200-201 (1967); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1030, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 73 (1967); 114 Cong. Rec. 7516, 8111-8112 (1968).
We do not agree with the suggestion made by the Court of Claims in Northern California Central Services, Inc. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl., at 67, 591 F. 2d, at 624, that Congress “may have wished not to encourage cooperative hospital laundries by new tax exemptions, to which commercial laundries made vehement objections, yet to leave such laundries free to obtain from the courts the exemptions that existing law might afford them.” The extended hearings, the Committee considerations, and the floor debates all reveal that Congress was well informed on the issue and made a deliberate decision. We necessarily recognize that congressional choice.
The Commissioner never expressly announced a nonacquiescence in this decision. However, in an apparent response to the Hospital Bureau case, the feeder regulation, § 1.502-1 (b), was amended in several respects in 1963. See T. D. 6662, 1963-2 Cum. Bull. 214, 215-216. See also Associated Hospital Services, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, at 219.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether a taxpayer must pay the full amount of an income tax deficiency before he may challenge its correctness by a suit for refund under 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1).
During 1950 petitioner suffered losses on the sale of certain commodities and futures. He reported them as ordinary losses, but the Commissioner of Internal Revenue characterized them as capital losses. A deficiency assessment was levied in the amount of $28,908.60, including interest. Petitioner made two payments that totaled $5,058.54, and then submitted a claim for refund of that amount. The claim was disallowed. On Aug. 3, 1956, petitioner brought this action under 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1) for refund. The United States moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district judge held that because petitioner had not paid the full amount of the deficiency he “should not maintain” the action. Because the question had not been resolved by the Court of Appeals, however, he deemed it advisable to pass upon the merits, and upon doing so entered judgment for defendant United States. 142 F. Supp. 602. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss, holding that the complaint “failed to state a claim” because petitioner had not paid the entire assessment for the period in question. 246 F. 2d 929. We granted certiorari, 355 U. S. 881, to resolve the conflict between that decision and Bushmiaer v. United States, 230 F. 2d 146 (C. A. 8th Cir.).
The pertinent jurisdictional statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1), reads as follows:
“(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Claims, of:
“ (1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum, alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws (Emphasis supplied.)
In matters of statutory construction the duty of this Court is to give effect to the intent of Congress, and in doing so our first reference is of course to the literal meaning of words employed. The principle of strict construction of waivers of sovereign immunity, United States v. Michel, 282 U. S. 656, and the sharp division of opinion among the lower courts on the meaning of the pertinent statutory language suggest the presence of ambiguity in what might otherwise be termed a clear authorization to sue for the refund of “any sum.” Consequently, a thorough consideration of the relevant legislative history is required.
Section 1346 was originally enacted as Section 1310 (c) of the Revenue Act of 1921. Its essential language seems to have been copied from R. S. § 3226, the predecessor of the present claim-for-refund statute, 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 7422 (a). Those statutes use language identical to that appearing above to provide that no suit for the refund of a “tax,” “penalty,” or “sum” shall be maintained until similar relief has been sought from the Secretary or his delegate. The meaning that has been ascribed to this language in the claim-for-refund statute provides the key to what Congress intended when it used that language in the jurisdictional provision.
The original claim-for-refund statute, Section 19 of the Revenue Act of July 13, 1866, provided that no suit should be maintained in any court for the recovery of “any tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, until appeal shall have been duly made to the commissioner of internal revenue . ...” On this “appeal” the Commissioner was empowered to “remit, refund, and pay back” all taxes or penalties improperly assessed or collected. When the appeal requirement was restated in Section 3226 of the Revised Statutes, Congress added the “penalty” and “sum” clauses, bringing together for the first time the three-way division that survives in 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 7422 (a) and 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a) (1). The revisers left no indication of what significance, if any, was to be attached to this addition.
During the period of this formative legislation refund suits could not be brought against the United States because of its sovereign immunity. Tax litigation took the form of an action of assumpsit against the collector. See Philadelphia v. Collector, 5 Wall. 720. Such suits were of course subject to the provision in Section 19 of the 1866 Act that they must be preceded by “appeal” to the Commissioner. The meaning of that command, which later became R. S. § 3226 and eventually, as amended, 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 7422 (a), was considered in Cheatham v. United States, 92 U. S. 85. There, in response to an appeal, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had set aside the first assessment of taxpayer’s 1864 income taxes and directed the local assessor to make a second one. The taxpayer paid the second assessment and sued the collector for refund. The Court held that by failing to appeal from the second assessment the taxpayer failed to comply with Section 19 and hence had no right of action. In the course of its opinion the Court made this careful statement of the remedies then available to taxpayers who sought to contest the correctness of their tax:
“So also, in the internal-revenue department, the statute which we have copied allows appeals from the assessor to the commissioner of internal revenue ; and, if dissatisfied with his decision, on paying the tax the party can sue the collector; and, if the money was wrongfully exacted, the courts will give him relief by a judgment, which the United States pledges herself to pay.
. . While a free course of remonstrance and appeal is allowed within the departments before the money is finally exacted, the general government has wisely made the payment of the tax claimed, whether of customs or of internal revenue, a condition precedent to a resort to the coúrts by the party against whom the tax is assessed. ... If the compliance with this condition [that suit must be brought within six months of the Commissioner’s decision] requires the party aggrieved to pay the money, he must do it. He cannot, after the decision is rendered against him, protract the time within which he can contest that decision in the courts by his own delay in paying the money. It is essential to the honor and orderly conduct of the government that its taxes should be promptly paid, and drawbacks speedily adjusted; and the rule prescribed in this class of cases is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. . . .
“The objecting party can take his appeal. He can, if the decision is delayed beyond twelve months, rest his case on that decision; or he can pay the amount claimed, and commence his suit at any time within that period. So, after the decision, he can pay at once, and commence suit within the six months . ...” (Emphasis added.)
From this carefully considered dictum it is unmistakably clear that the Court understood the statutes of that time to require full payment of an assessed tax as a condition precedent to the right to sue the collector for a refund. This understanding of the statutory scheme appears to have prevailed for the succeeding fifty or sixty years. It was never suggested that the addition in R. S. § 3226 of the clause beginning “any sum” effected any change. The Cheatham case was decided after that addition was made, and it gave no indication that the “condition precedent” of which it spoke had already been abrogated by Congress. Consistent with that understanding, there does not appear to be a single case before 1940 in which a taxpayer attempted a suit for refund of income taxes without paying the full amount the Government alleged to be due. Court opinions that took occasion to comment on the extent of payment are consistent with the Cheatham declaration, and that case has continued to be cited with approval to the present day. Such was the understanding of the necessity for full payment in the suit against the collector.
Since the statute now under consideration, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1), employs language identical to that in the statute under which the full-payment understanding developed, R. S. § 3226, a construction requiring full payment would appear to be more consistent with the established meaning of <fche statutory language. Furthermore, the situation with respect to tax suits against the United States at the time 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1) was enacted, the express purpose of its enactment, and subsequent expressions of congressional intent all suggest that the principle of full payment was to be preserved.
The jurisdictional provision that is now 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1) was first enacted in Section 1310(c) of the Revenue Act of 1921. At that time the United States was already suable in the District Courts. Since 1887 the Tucker Act had allowed suit against the United States for claims less than $10,000 “founded upon . . . any law of Congress . . . ,” . and that language included suits to obtain refund of income taxes. United States v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Realty Co., 237 U. S. 28. Since R. S. § 3226 was cast in the broadest of terms, its requirement that refund suits be preceded by an “appeal” to the Commissioner clearly applied to the Tucker Act cases, United States v. Michel, 282 U. S. 656, and the related requirement that full payment must be made prior to suit seems to have been assumed to be equally applicable. For amounts in excess of the $10,000 Tucker Act limitation the taxpayer could invoke his old remedy against the collector.
The complementary nature of the two District Court remedies was impaired when this Court re-emphasized the rule requiring the collector to be sued personally. A suit against the office or the successor in office of a deceased collector could not be maintained. Smietanka v. Indiana Steel Co., 257 U. S. 1 (1921). Senator Jones of New Mexico interrupted floor debate on the Revenue Act of 1921 to call attention to this decision. In his view it meant that when the particular collector was dead a taxpayer suing for more than $10,000 had to bring suit in the Court of Claims. In addition to the extra expense and inconvenience of litigating in Washington, a Court of Claims judgment carried no interest. The Senator proposed an amendment, stating:
“What is here proposed is that we shall remedy that situation by providing that where the collector to whom the revenue was paid has died then the claimant may sue the United States. It simply brings about an equitable situation and prevents the taxpayer from having to suffer the hardships which would be brought upon him simply through the accident of the death of the collector to whom he paid the money. I offer the amendment for the purpose of remedying that situation.”
The amendment, which was accepted without further comment, conferred jurisdiction on the District Court,
“Concurrent with the Court of Claims, of any suit or proceeding, commenced after the passage of the revenue act of 1921, for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws, even if the claim exceeds $10,000, if the collector of internal revenue by whom such tax, penalty, or such was collected is dead at the time such suit or proceeding is commenced.”
The amendment’s narrow-stated purpose refutes any suggestion that Congress intended further to expand or even to restate the jurisdiction of the District Court in refund suits brought against the United States. As we have seen, the District Courts already had such jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, and there is no indication that Congress intended any change in the terms on which that action was made available other than the change that was clearly set forth. The statute that is now 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1) was enacted merely to remove the jurisdictional amount limitation of the Tucker Act in the special situation where the collector could not be sued. See Lowe Bros. Co. v. United States, 304 U. S. 302, 305. The House Conference Report and a contemporary Treasury Department declaration confirm this view of the statute’s effect.
The similarity of essential language leaves no doubt that the terms of the jurisdictional provision were copied from the claim-for-refund statute, R. S. § 3226, as amended by Section 1318 of the Revenue Act of 1921. The fact that this language had for many years been considered to require full payment before suing the collector, and the fact that the avowed purpose of the 1921 amendment was merely to cure an inadequacy in the suit against the collector, combine as persuasive indications that no change was intended in the full-payment principle declared in Cheatham v. United States, supra.
When Congress created the Board of Tax Appeals in 1924, it demonstrated a clear understanding that refund suits could only be maintained upon full payment of the tax alleged to be due. The House Committee proposing the bill explained its purpose as follows:
“The committee recommends the establishment of a Board of Tax Appeals to which a taxpayer may appeal prior to the payment of an additional assessment of income, excess-profits, war-profits, or estate taxes. Although a taxpayer may, after payment of his tax, bring suit for the recovery thereof and thus secure a judicial determination of the questions involved, he can not, in view of section 3224 of the Revised Statutes, which prohibits suits to enjoin the collection of taxes, secure such a determination prior to the payment of the tax. The right of appeal after payment of the tax is an incomplete remedy, and does little to remove the hardship occasioned by an incorrect assessment. The payment of a large additional tax on income received several years previous and which may have, since its receipt, been either wiped out by subsequent losses, invested in non-liquid assets, or spent, sometimes forces taxpayers into bankruptcy, and often causes great financial hardship and sacrifice. These results are not remedied by permitting the taxpayer to sue for the recovery of the tax after this payment. He is entitled to an appeal and to a determination of his 'liability for the tax prior to its payment.”
Petitioner argues that the “hardship” the Board of Tax Appeals was created to alleviate was not the taxpayer’s inability to sue without paying the whole tax — -for petitioner erroneously concludes that the 1921 amendment conferred that right — but the Government’s power to collect the balance due while a refund suit was in progress. But the Committee Report quoted above clearly demonstrates that the hardship about which the Congress was concerned was the hardship of pre-litigation payment, not post-litigation collection. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 279 U. S. 716, 721.
The final step in the evolvement of 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1) took place in the Act of July 30, 1954, which removed the $10,000 jurisdictional limitation and eliminated the condition about the collector being dead or out of office. Far from indicating an intent to allow suit without full payment of the tax due, the legislative history of that amendment shows a clear understanding of the Cheatham requirement, and demonstrates a narrow purpose in no way inconsistent with that requirement. The House Report states:
“The purpose of this bill is to permit taxpayers a greater opportunity to sue the United States in the district court of their own residence to recover taxes which they feel have been wrongfully collected. This is done by removing the jurisdictional limitation of $10,000 now imposed on such suits.”
In explaining the present state of the law the Report goes on to point out that a taxpayer may contest a deficiency assessment by a petition in the Tax Court. “The taxpayer may, however,” the Report continues, “elect to pay his tax and thereafter bring suit to recover the amount claimed to have been illegally exacted.”
The foregoing study of the legislative history of 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1) and related statutes leaves no room for contention that their broad terms were intended to alter in any way the Cheatham principle of “pay first and litigate later.” For many years that principle has been reinforced by the rule that no suit can be maintained for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax. More recently, Congress took care to except from the operation of the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act any controversies “with respect to Federal taxes.” To ameliorate the hardship produced by these requirements Congress created a special court where tax questions could be adjudicated in advance of any payment. But there is no indication of any intent to create the hybrid remedy for which petitioner contends.
It is suggested that a part-payment remedy is necessary for the benefit of a taxpayer too poor to pay the full amount of the tax. Such an individual is free to litigate in the Tax Court without any advance payment. Where the time to petition that court has expired, or where for some other reason a suit in the District Court seems more desirable, the requirement of full payment may in some instances work a hardship. But since any hardship would grow out of an opinion whose effect Congress in successive statutory revisions has made no attempt to alter, if any amelioration is required it is now a matter for Congress, not this Court.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Whittaker, believing that Bushmiaer v. United States, 230 F. 2d 146 (C. A. 8th Cir.); Sirian Lamp Co. v. Manning, 123 F. 2d 776 (C. A. 3d Cir.), and Coates v. United States, 111 F. 2d 609 (C. A. 2d Cir.), properly apply the statutes involved and should be followed, would reverse the judgment below.
See also Suhr v. United States, 18 F. 2d 81 (C. A. 3d Cir.). But cf. Sirian Lamp Co. v. Manning, 123 F. 2d 776 (C. A. 3d Cir.).
See also Sirian Lamp Co. v. Manning, 123 F. 2d 776 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Coates v. United States, 111 F. 2d 609 (C. A. 2d Cir.). But cf. Bendheim v. Commissioner, 214 F. 2d 26, 28 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Elbert v. Johnson, 164 F. 2d 421, 423-424 (C. A. 2d Cir.).
42 Stat. 311.
26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 7422 (a): “No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary or his delegate, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary or his delegate established in pursuance thereof.” R. S. § 3226 is quoted in note 7, infra.
14 Stat. 152.
14 Stat. 111.
“No suit shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of [1] any internal tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally'- assessed or collected, or of [2] any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of [3] any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until appeal shall have been duly made to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue . . . R. S. § 3226.
This language is practically identical to that used by the 1866 Act in giving the Commissioner his refunding powers. 14 Stat. Ill, restated in R. S. § 3220. The first category dates back to the 1863 Act. 12 Stat. 729. The third category was added in 1864. 13 Stat. 239. The 1866 Act rounded out the three categories by adding the second. 14 Stat. 111. An examination of the legislative history discloses no indication of the purpose of these successive additions.
Initially such suits depended upon diversity jurisdiction. Collector v. Hubbard, 12 Wall. 1. Later Congress created jurisdiction for “all causes arising under any law providing internal revenue . . . R. S. § 629 Fourth. With slight modification that provision became Section 24 Fifth of the Judicial Code, 36 Stat. 1092, and is presently 28 U. S. C. § 1340. See Lowe Bros. Co. v. United States, 304 U. S. 302, 305.
92 U. S., at 88-89.
Kings County Savings Institution v. Blair, 116 U. S. 200, 205 (1886) (“No claim for the refunding of taxes can be made according to law and the regulations until after the taxes have been paid [and] ... no suit can be maintained for taxes illegally collected unless a claim therefor has been made within the time prescribed by the law.”); Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 609 (1895) (dissenting opinion) (“The same authorities [including the Cheatham case] have established the rule that the proper course, in a case of illegal taxation, is to pay the tax under protest or with notice of suit, and then bring an action against the officer who collected it.”); Dodge v. Osborn, 240 U. S. 118, 120 (1916) (“The remedy of a suit to recover back the tax after it is paid is provided by statute . . . .”); see note 20, infra.
E. g., Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589, 595; United States v. Jefferson Electric Co., 291 U. S. 386, 395-396; Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U. S. 489, 496.
42 Stat. 311.
24 Stat. 505, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a) (2).
61 Cong. Rec. 7506-7507.
61 Cong. Rec. 7507. A second amendment provided that interest should be allowed in any judgment against the United States in these refund suits. Ibid. A special amendment in 1925 added the right to bring such refund suits when the collector “is not in office.” 43 Stat. 972.
H. R. Rep. No. 486, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. 57; II — 1 Cum. Bull. 224, 225.
42 Stat. 314. The 1921 Act substituted “claim for refund or credit” where the statute formerly referred to an “appeal” to the Commissioner.
43 Stat. 336.
H. R. Rep. No. 179, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 7. The Senate Committee on Finance made a similar explanation. S. Rep. No. 398, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 8.
“The Board of Tax Appeals . . . was created by Congress to provide taxpayers an opportunity to secure an independent review of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of additional income and estate taxes by the Board in advance of their paying the tax found by the Commissioner to be due. Before the Act of 1924 the taxpayer could only contest the Commissioner’s determination of the amount of the tax after its payment.”
68 Stat. 589.
H. R. Rep. No. 659, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 1.
Id., at 2. And see S. Rep. No. 115, 83d Cong., 1st Sess.
Allen v. Regents of University System of Ga., 304 U. S. 439, 456 (concurring opinion).
14 Stat. 475 (1867), re-enacted in R. S. § 3224, presently in force as 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 7421.
49 Stat. 1027, 28 U. S. C. §2201. See S. Rep. No. 1240, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 11.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Upon remand of this case, 378 U. S. 560 (1964), for further proceedings consistent with the views stated in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964), the District Court on January 22, 1965, entered a judgment declaring invalid Art. IV, § 6, of the Illinois Constitution and Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 46, §§158-1 to 158-5 (1963), apportioning the Illinois Senate; directing that all members of the Illinois General Assembly be made parties defendant; and requiring that “any implementation, amendment or substitution of all or part of the said defective portions” of the Illinois Constitution or legislation be submitted to it for approval before the holding of any election thereunder. It further held that if no such “implementation, amendment or substitution” was submitted it would order the parties to show cause why all Illinois State Senators should not be elected from the State at large in the 1966 election and every four years thereafter.
In April 1964 the case of People ex rel. Engle v. Kerner was filed in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois. It contested the composition of both houses of the General Assembly but was dismissed by the trial court. Upon appeal the Supreme Court of Illinois on February 4, 1965, held the composition of the Illinois Senate invalid; the court expressed confidence that the General Assembly would “successfully perform its duty to enact a constitutionally valid plan during its current session” which expires July 1, 1965. However, the court retained jurisdiction of the case “for the purpose of taking such affirmative action as may be necessary to insure that the 1966 election is pursuant to a constitutionally valid plan.” 32 Ill. 2d 212, 225, 205 N. E. 2d 33, 41.
On February 8, 1965, the appellants here moved that the United States District Court reconsider and vacate its order of January 22, 1965, and stay further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court of Illinois’ opinion in Engle, supra. This the District Court refused to do. Direct appeal was perfected here, 28 U. S. C. § 1253 (1958 ed.), and the appellants have now moved to stay the judgment of the District Court.'
We believe that the District Court should have stayed its hand. The power of the judiciary of a State to require valid reapportionment or to formulate a valid redistricting plan has not only been recognized by this Court but appropriate action by the States in such cases has been specifically encouraged. Maryland Committee v. Tawes, 377 U. S. 656, 676 (1964); Scranton v. Drew, 379 U. S. 40 (1964), citing Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438, 203 A. 2d 556 (1964); Jackman v. Bodine, 43 N. J. 453, 473, 205 A. 2d 713, 724 (1964). See also Kidd v. McCanless, 200 Tenn. 273, 292 S. W. 2d 40 (1956), and discussion thereof in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 235-236 (1962).
We therefore vacate the order of the District Court dated May 7,1965. The case is remanded with directions that the District Court enter an order fixing a reasonable time within which the appropriate agencies of the State of Illinois, including its Supreme Court, may validly redistrict the Illinois State Senate; provided that the same be accomplished within ample time to permit such plan to be utilized in the 1966 election of the members of the State Senate, in accordance with the provisions of the Illinois election laws. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 46 (1963).
The District Court shall retain jurisdiction of the case and in the event a valid reapportionment plan for the State Senate is not timely adopted it may enter such orders as it deems appropriate, including an order for a valid reapportionment plan for the State Senate or an order directing that its members be elected at large pending a valid reapportionment by the State itself.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The motion to dispense with the printing of the jurisdictional statement is granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
Christopher Barkes, "a troubled man with a long history of mental health and substance abuse problems," was arrested on November 13, 2004, for violating his probation. Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc.,766 F.3d 307, 310-311 (C.A.3 2014). Barkes was taken to the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution in Wilmington, Delaware. As part of Barkes's intake, a nurse who worked for the contractor providing healthcare at the Institution conducted a medical evaluation. Id.,at 311.
The evaluation included a mental health screening designed in part to assess whether an inmate was suicidal. The nurse employed a suicide screening form based on a model form developed by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) in 1997. The form listed 17 suicide risk factors. If the inmate's responses and nurse's observations indicated that at least eight were present, or if certain serious risk factors were present, the nurse would notify a physician and initiate suicide prevention measures. Id.,at 311, 313.
Barkes disclosed that he had a history of psychiatric treatment and was on medication. He also disclosed that he had attempted suicide in 2003, though not-as far as the record indicates-that he had also done so on three other occasions. And he indicated that he was not currently thinking about killing himself. Because only two risk factors were apparent, the nurse gave Barkes a "routine" referral to mental health services and did not initiate any special suicide prevention measures. Id.,at 311.
Barkes was placed in a cell by himself. Despite what he had told the nurse, that evening he called his wife and told her that he "can't live this way anymore" and was going to kill himself. Barkes's wife did not inform anyone at the Institution of this call. The next morning, correctional officers observed Barkes awake and behaving normally at 10:45, 10:50, and 11:00 a.m. At 11:35 a.m., however, an officer arrived to deliver lunch and discovered that Barkes had hanged himself with a sheet. Id.,at 311-312.
Barkes's wife and children, respondents here, brought suit under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against various entities and individuals connected with the Institution, who they claimed had violated Barkes's civil rights in failing to prevent his suicide. At issue here is a claim against petitioners Stanley Taylor, Commissioner of the Delaware Department of Correction (DOC), and Raphael Williams, the Institution's warden. Although it is undisputed that neither petitioner had personally interacted with Barkes or knew of his condition before his death, respondents alleged that Taylor and Williams had violated Barkes's constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc.,2008 WL 523216, *7 (D.Del., Feb. 27, 2008). They did so, according to respondents, by failing to supervise and monitor the private contractor that provided the medical treatment-including the intake screening-at the Institution. Petitioners moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity, but the District Court denied the motion. Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc.,2012 WL 2914915, *8-*12 (D.Del., July 17, 2012).
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. The majority first determined that respondents had alleged a cognizable theory of supervisory liability (a decision upon which we express no view). 766 F.3d, at 316-325. The majority then turned to the two-step qualified immunity inquiry, asking "first, whether the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and second, if so, whether that right was 'clearly established' at the time of the alleged misconduct." Id.,at 326.
Taking these questions in reverse order, the Third Circuit held that it was clearly established at the time of Barkes's death that an incarcerated individual had an Eighth Amendment "right to the proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols." Id.,at 327. The panel majority then concluded there were material factual disputes about whether petitioners had violated this right by failing to adequately supervise the contractor providing medical services at the prison. There was evidence, the majority noted, that the medical contractor's suicide screening process did not comply with NCCHC's latest standards, as required by the contract. Those standards allegedly called for a revised screening form and for screening by a qualified mental health professional, not a nurse. There was also evidence that the contractor did not have access to Barkes's probation records (which would have shed light on his mental health history), and that the contractor had been short-staffing to increase profits. Id.,at 330-331.
Judge Hardiman dissented. As relevant here, he concluded that petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity because the right on which the majority relied was "a departure from Eighth Amendment case law that had never been established before today." Id.,at 345.
Taylor and Williams petitioned for certiorari. We grant the petition and reverse on the ground that there was no violation of clearly established law.
"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." Reichle v. Howards,566 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2093, 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012). "To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right." Ibid.(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). "When properly applied, [qualified immunity] protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,563 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2085, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011)(internal quotation marks omitted). "We do not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate." Id.,at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2083.
The Third Circuit concluded that the right at issue was best defined as "an incarcerated person's right to the proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols." 766 F.3d, at 327. This purported right, however, was not clearly established in November 2004 in a way that placed beyond debate the unconstitutionality of the Institution's procedures, as implemented by the medical contractor.
No decision of this Court establishes a right to the proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols. No decision of this Court even discusses suicide screening or prevention protocols. And "to the extent that a 'robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority' " in the Courts of Appeals "could itself clearly establish the federal right respondent alleges," City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan,575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 1779, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2015), the weight of that authority at the time of Barkes's death suggested that such a right did notexist. See, e.g.,Comstock v.
McCrary,273 F.3d 693, 702 (C.A.6 2001)("the right to medical care for serious medical needs does not encompass the right to be screened correctly for suicidal tendencies" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tittle v. Jefferson Cty. Comm'n,10 F.3d 1535, 1540 (C.A.11 1994)(alleged "weaknesses in the [suicide] screening process, the training of deputies[,] and the supervision of prisoners" did not "amount to a showing of deliberate indifference toward the rights of prisoners"); Burns v. Galveston,905 F.2d 100, 104 (C.A.5 1990)(rejecting the proposition that "the right of detainees to adequate medical care includes an absolute right to psychological screening"); Belcher v. Oliver,898 F.2d 32, 34-35 (C.A.4 1990)("The general right of pretrial detainees to receive basic medical care does not place upon jail officials the responsibility to screen every detainee for suicidal tendencies.").
The Third Circuit nonetheless found this right clearly established by two of its own decisions, both stemming from the same case. Assuming for the sake of argument that a right can be "clearly established" by circuit precedent despite disagreement in the courts of appeals, neither of the Third Circuit decisions relied upon clearly established the right at issue. The first, Colburn I,said that if officials "know or should know of the particular vulnerability to suicide of an inmate," they have an obligation "not to act with reckless indifference to that vulnerability." Colburn v. Upper Darby Twp.,838 F.2d 663, 669 (1988). The decision did not say, however, that detention facilities must implement procedures to identify such vulnerable inmates, let alone specify what procedures would suffice. And the Third Circuit later acknowledged that Colburn I 's use of the phrase "or should know"-which might seem to nod toward a screening requirement of some kind-was erroneous in light of Farmer v. Brennan,511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), which held that Eighth Amendment liability requires actual awareness of risk. See Serafin v. Johnstown,53 Fed.Appx. 211, 213 (C.A.3 2002).
Nor would Colburn IIhave put petitioners on notice of any possible constitutional violation. Colburn IIreiterated that officials who know of an inmate's particular vulnerability to suicide must not be recklessly indifferent to that vulnerability. Colburn v. Upper Darby Twp.,946 F.2d 1017, 1023 (1991). But it did not identify any minimum screening procedures or prevention protocols that facilities must use. In fact, Colburn IIrevealed that the booking process of the jail at issue "include[d] no formal physical or mental health screening," ibid.,and yet the Third Circuit ruled for the defendants on all claims, see id.,at 1025-1031.
In short, even if the Institution's suicide screening and prevention measures contained the shortcomings that respondents allege, no precedent on the books in November 2004 would have made clear to petitioners that they were overseeing a system that violated the Constitution. Because, at the very least, petitioners were not contravening clearly established law, they are entitled to qualified immunity. The judgment of the Third Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Supplemental Decree
For the purpose of giving effect to the conclusions of this Court as stated in its opinion, announced May 31, 1960, 363 U. S. 1, and other opinions or decrees entered by this Court on December 12, 1960, 364 U. S. 502; on December 13, 1965, 382 U. S. 288; on March 3, 1969, 394 U. S. 11; and on December 20, 1971, No. 9, Original, 404 U. S. 388.
It Is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed:
1. With the exceptions provided by § 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 32, 43 U. S. C. § 1313 (1964 ed.), the State of Louisiana is entitled, as against the United States, to all the lands, minerals and other natural resources lying more than one foot landward of the lines described in paragraph 2 hereof and seaward of the ordinary low-water mark on the Louisiana shore, provided that the United States is not hereby required to relinquish any monies presently held by it for offset purposes solely in connection with accounting problems which have heretofore been deferred by the parties pending resolution of the larger disputes between them, without prejudice to the right of the State of Louisiana to contest éither the substance of the United States's offset claims or its right to withhold monies in connection with them.
2. The lines referred to in paragraph 1 hereof are described by coordinates in the Louisiana Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, in two segments, as follows:
Segment I
South and west of the Mississippi-Louisiana border to grid line Y = 158695, north of West Bay,
X Y
BEGINNING AT. 2769367 675650
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2790268 526390
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2779032 512013
TO. 2791386 525434
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2793119 523838
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2780766 510417
TO. 2794694 522313
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2795887 520810
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2782059 508914
TO. 2796579 519954
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2799209 516495
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2784689 505455
TO. 2800441 614653
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2804270 608096
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2788518 498898
TO. 2804495 607699
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2806028 604916
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2790051 496115
TO. 2807014 502822
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2808653 498677
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2791690 491970
TO. 2809151 497245
X Y
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2812250 486987
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2794789 481712
TO. 2812519 485996
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2813932 480148
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2796202 475864
TO. 2814262 478425
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2815269 471324
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2797209 468763
TO. 2815426 469688
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2815673 464823
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2797456 463898
TO. 2815697 463895
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2815696 458116
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2797455 458119
TO. 2815657 456928
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2815269 450999
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2797067 452190
TO. 2815171 449960
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2813957 440103
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2795853 442333
TO. 2813809 439123
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2812678 432796
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2794722 436006
TO. 2812419 431584
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2810957 425733
BY ÁRC CENTERED AT. 2793260 430155
TO. 2810699 424807
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2807854 415530
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2790415 420878
TO. 2807572 414684
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2805322 408462
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2788165 414646
TO. 2805227 408196
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2803786 404384
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2786724 410834
TO. 2803319 403263
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2799845 395648
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2783250 403219
TO. 2798971 393968
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2795394 387889
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2779673 397140
TO. 2795311 387750
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2793560 384834
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2777922 394224
TO. 2792249 382934
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2790814 381113
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2776487 392403
TO. 2789360 379480
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2774670. 390293
TO. 2788262. 378129
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2786653. 376045
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2770599. 383887
TO. 2785045. 372750
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2783942. 371319
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2783792. 371062
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2768031. 380244
TO. 2780548. 366976
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2775735. 360553
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2761138. 371491
TO. 2775111. 359766
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2773031. 357287
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2757465. 366796
TO. 2771721. 355417
BY ^STRAIGHT LINE TO 27706."$. 354054
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2770505. 353847
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2755015. 363480
TO. 2767788. 350458
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2761994. 344775
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2749221. 357797
TO. 2760703. 343624
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2757791. 341265
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2746309. 355438
TO. 2756022. 339999
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2754136. 338812
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2742173. 323079
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2727653. 334120
TO. 2741983. 322834
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2741182. 321817
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2726852. 333103
TO. 2738042. 318698
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2736381. 317408
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2736060. 316935
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2732627. 311249
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2717012. 320677
TO. 2731416. 309486
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2729640. 307200
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2715236. 318391
TO. 2728702. 306088
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2728099. 305428
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2714633. 317731
TO. 2725197. 302861
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2723888. 301931
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2713324. 316801
TO. 2720770. 300149
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2719218. 299455
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2711772. 316107
TO. 2714238 298034
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2704480 294684
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2704099 293666
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2687014 300054
TO. 2701338 288761
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2699382 286280
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2685058 297573
TO. 2697436 284175
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2699302 266715
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2688235 252215
TO. 2704468 260534
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2689305 250395
TO. 2707507 251577
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2700735 234640
TO.'. 2717908. 240788
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2701500 232820
TO. 2719022 237890
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2707635 223640
TO. 2721632 235337
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2736873 228413.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2738320 210230
TO. 2745585 226961
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2738938 209975
TO. 2749646 224742
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2750755 206535
TO. 2759837 222354
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2755325 204680
TO. 2773229 201192
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2755178 203815
TO. 2770763 194337
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2754100 186915
TO. 2771780 191404
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2754263 186316
TO. 2772100 182502
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2753885 183460
TO. 2766449 169354
BY ARC CENTERED AT.1.. 2752470. 182170
TO. 2761213 166161
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2751045 181305
TO. 2752202 163101
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 275b586 181270
TO. 2749611 163055
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2736662 175902
TO. 2748316 161869
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2734720 174030
TO. 2747824 161341
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2746249 159715
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2728153 162005
TO. 2746094. 158715
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2745156. 153600
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2727215. 156890
TO. 2745054. 153083
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2726951. 150846
TO.>... 2743622. 143444
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2726105. 148530
TO. 2731258. 131033
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2716731. 112786
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2702461. 124148
TO. 2716719. 112772
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2699435. 118600
TO. 2710698. 104252
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2697850. 117200
TO. 2683320. 106173
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2682980. 106621
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2697510. 117648
TO. 2679799. 113283
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2679589. 114135
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2697300. 118500
TO. 2679155. 116635
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2685325. 133800
TO. 2670977. 122536
BY STRAIGHT LINE.TO 2670552. 122781
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2666743. 124295
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2673482. 141245
TO. 2665719. 124739
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2672315. 141745
TO. 2661428. 127109
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2644940. 134910
TO. 2660589. 125539
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2657484. 120354
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2641835. 129725
TO. 2656150. 118421
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2653860. 115521
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2639545. 126825
TO. 2648682. 111038
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2648610. 110974
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2648531. 110887
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2646419. 107265
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2630660. 116450
TO. 2646250. 106981
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2644270. 103721
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2628680. 113190
TO. 2642494. 101278
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2640182. 98597
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2624995. 108700
TO. 2638408. 96339
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2638210. 96123
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2637630. 95377
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2624045. 107660
TO 2637471. 95312
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2635351. 93007
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2621925. 105355
TO 2634923. 92558
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2633653. 91268
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2620655. 104065
TO 2631973. 89760
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2631344. 89262
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2630156. 87770
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2615885. 99131
TO 2630068. 87661
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2629389. 86821
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2626027. 82661
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2624340. 80576
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2610160. 92050
TO 2621555. 77806
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2621180. 77506
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2609785. 91750
TO 2617996. 75462
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2617391. 75157
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2609180. 91445
TO 2597416. 77505
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2595526. 79100
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2607290. 93040
TO 2589664. 97736
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2607455. 93710
TO 2591641. 102625
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2592751. 104785
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2608665. 96870
TO 2593838. 106495
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2595167. 108350
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2596041. 109955
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2614270. 110615
TO 2597233. 117130
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 2597210. 155899
BY ARC CENTERED AT 2614790. 160765
TO 2596949. 156969
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2596342. 158695
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO SHORE AT 2615450. 157770
SEGMENT II
From the vicinity of Bayou Goreau to the vicinity of Sabine Pass, west of grid line X = 2082361 and east of the Texas-Louisiana border,
X Y
BEGINNING AT. 2082361 169358.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2081470 169553.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2085370 187372.
TO. 2076984 171174.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2077417 189409.
TO. 2071846 172040 __
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2070630 172430.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2076201 189799.
TO. 2064747 175603.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2063841 176334.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2075295 190530.
TO. 2059951 180668.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2071131 195080.
TO. 2058843 181599.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2062055 199555.
TO. 2057134 181991.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2053779 182931.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2058700 200495.
TO. 2053474 183019.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2052967 183053.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2051871 183006.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2051090 201230.
TO. 2050845 182991.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2048985 183016.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2049230 201255.
TO. 2048033 183054.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2044865 183262.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2041482 183446.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2042475 201660.
TO. 2037472 184119.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2033139 185355.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2032934 185387.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2035775 203405.
TO. 2029791 186174.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2027401 187004.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2033385 204235.
TO. 2026834 187211.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2023510 188491.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2020959 189327.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2026640 206660.
TO. 2019190 190010.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2016613 191163.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2015796 191414.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2021155 208850.
TO. 2013823 192148
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2010121 193773
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2017453 210475
TO. 2007660...... 195086
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2006450 195856
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2016243 211245
TO. 2002812 198903
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 2001329 200516
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1998627 203119
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1996877 204647
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2008873 218388
TO.. 1994484 207177
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1993669 208223
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2Ó08058 219434
TO. 1992024 210737
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1991723 211291
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1991392 211653
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1987627 216292
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 2000030 228573
TO. 1985881 217061
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1984419 218858
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1998568 230370
TO. 1982726 221329
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1981279 223864
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1987818 240892
TO. 1975782 227186
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1987371 241272
TO. 1972054 231367
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1937446 246505
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1933172 264238
TO. 1920501 251117
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1924399 268936
TO. 1916888 252314
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1914373 270380
TO. 1900989 257987
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1896827 275747
TO. 1895100 257588
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1882306 270590
TO. 1867537 259884
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1872418 277460
TO. 1858534 265630
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1843467 276912
. 1848729 258447 TO.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1835344 270839
TO. 1841538 253682
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1834019 270301
TO. 1817077 263541
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1833527 271423
TO. 1815531 274401.
BY ARC CENTERED AT.. 1820994 291804.
TO. 1808997 278064.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1809845 296285.
TO. 1792971 289357.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1791584 307545.
TO. 1773422 305849.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1783067 321331.
TO. 1771284 307407.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1782391 321876.
TO. 1769317 309156.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1778769 324757.
TO. 1763172 315299.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1763190 333540.
TO. 1762008 315338.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1761238 315388.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1762420 333590.
TO. 1761004 315404.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1758630 333490 -
TO. 1751585 316665.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1749527 316597.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1745678 316238.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1741757 315745.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1738098 314155.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1730831 330886.
TO. 1737269 313819.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1733962 312572.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1733065 312110.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1724713 328326.
TO. 1729983 310863.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1729557 310735.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1727510 309315.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1717114 324303.
TO. 1726647 308752.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1721463 305574.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1721351 305467.
.BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1708756 318661.
TO. 1715565 301739.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1713599 300948.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1706790 317870.
TO. 1711471 300240.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1707761 299255.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1703080 316885.
TO. 1706765 299020.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1704365 298525.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1700680 316390.
TO. 1702466 298237.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1698144 297812.
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1696359 315965
TO. 1696239 297725
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1692448 297750
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1692568 315990
TO. 1691302 297793
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1688714 297973
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1689980 316170
TO. 1687709 298071
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1684999 298411
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1687270 316510
TO. 1683393 298686
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1674668 300584
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1678545 318408
TO. 1674182 300697
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1670983 301485
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1675346 319196
TO. 1670472 301619
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1666144 302819
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1671018 320396
TO. 1665216 303103
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1663698 303612
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1662427 303960
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1661678 304151
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1659494 304616
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1663290 322457
TO. 1659476 304620
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1658120 304910
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1658887 323134
TO. 1656354 305070
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1655896 323305
TO. 1652650 305356
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1650184 305802
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1653430 323751
TO. 1648635 306152
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1647051 306584
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1649308 324684
TO. 1643681 307333
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1636292 308607
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1627130 309807
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1620757 310390
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1622420 328555
TO. 1619895 310490
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1614565 311235
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1617090 329300
TO. 1613148 311491
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1611814 311591
BY ARC CENTERED AT.1613190 329780
TO. 1609960 311828
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1606070. 312528
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1609300 330480
TO. 1604702 312829
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1604290 312866
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1605965 331030
TO. 1601325 313389
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1601195 313403
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1603140 331540
TO. 1598672 313855
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1596370 314437
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1596179 314483
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1592424 315063
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1595210 333090
TO. 1591479 315235
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1594075 333290
TO. 1589694 315583
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1593010 333520
TO. 1589433 315634
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1588108 315899
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1591685 333785
TO. 1585928 316477
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1584286 317023
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1582201 317563
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1586780 335220
TO. 1581596 317732
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1576266 319312
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1581450 336800
TO. 1575360 319606
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1570080 321476
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1576170 338670
TO. 1569889 321545
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1565349 323210
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1571630 340335,
TO. 1663529 323992.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1563104 324202
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1561073 324994,
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1567695 341990
TO. 1558882 326020.
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1558879 326021
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1564160 343480,
TO. 1556225 327056,
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1556066 327133,
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1553511 327894,
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1558720 345375,
TO. 1551769 328511,
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1549575 329415,
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1553840 347150,
TO. 1546081 330642,
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1543911 331662
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1551670 348170
TO. 1541402 333094
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1640011 333646
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1546740 350600
TO. 1537927 334630
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1531757 337418
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1639270 354040
TO. 1530263 338178
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1527498 339748
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1536506 355610
TO. 1526511 340351
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1526495 340356
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1532515 357575
TO.. 1623959 341466
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1531240 358190
TO. 1522813 342013
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1516478 345313
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1505572 350398
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1513280 366930
TO. 1504778 350792
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1493968 356487
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1502470 372625
TO. 1493740 366609
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1488240 359607
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1483855 361809
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1492040 378110
TO. 1483320 362089
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1481464 363099
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1472522 367321
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1464632 370389
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1471240 387390
TO. 1464433 370467
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1461367 371700
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1455041 373829
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1449142 375498
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1454105 393050
TO. 1447394 376089
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1443224 377739
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1449935 394700
TO. 1442769 377926
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1437906 380003
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1435142 381048
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1431147 382502
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1431465 400740
TO. 1426148 383291
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO. 1423703 384036
BY ARC CENTERED AT. 1429020 401485
TO. 1421665. 384793
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 1421218. 384903
BY ARC CENTERED AT 1425600. 492610
TO. 1417428. 386302
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 1411695. 388054
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 1406675. 389181
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 1400158. 390267
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 1395815. 390681
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 1390919
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice SOTOMAYORdelivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)provides that certain juror testimony regarding what occurred in a jury room is inadmissible "[d]uring an inquiry into the validity of a verdict." The question presented in this case is whether Rule 606(b)precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one juror's affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other juror's dishonesty during voir dire. We hold that it does.
I
Petitioner Gregory Warger was riding his motorcycle on a highway outside Rapid City, South Dakota, when a truck driven by respondent Randy Shauers struck him from behind. Warger claims he was stopped at the time of the accident, while Shauers claims that Warger suddenly pulled out in front of him. Regardless of the cause of the accident, no one disputes its tragic result: Warger sustained serious injuries that ultimately required the amputation of his left leg.
Warger sued Shauers for negligence in Federal District Court. During jury selection, counsel for both parties conducted lengthy voir direof the prospective jurors. Warger's counsel asked whether any jurors would be unable to award damages for pain and suffering or for future medical expenses, or whether there was any juror who thought, "I don't think I could be a fair and impartial juror on this kind of case." App. 105. Prospective juror Regina Whipple, who was later selected as the jury foreperson, answered no to each of these questions. See id.,at 83, 89, 105.
Trial commenced, and the jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of Shauers. Shortly thereafter, one of the jurors contacted Warger's counsel to express concern over juror Whipple's conduct. The complaining juror subsequently signed an affidavit claiming that Whipple had spoken during deliberations about "a motor vehicle collision in which her daughter was at fault for the collision and a man died," and had "related that if her daughter had been sued, it would have ruined her life." App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a-41a.
Relying on this affidavit, Warger moved for a new trial. He contended that Whipple had deliberately lied during voir direabout her impartiality and ability to award damages. Thus, he asserted, he had satisfied the requirements of McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood,464 U.S. 548, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984), which holds that a party may "obtain a new trial" if he "demonstrate[s] that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire,and ... that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause." Id.,at 556, 104 S.Ct. 845.
The District Court refused to grant a new trial, holding that the only evidence that supported Warger's motion, the complaining juror's affidavit, was barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). As relevant here, that Rule provides that "[d]uring an inquiry into the validity of a verdict," evidence "about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's deliberations" is inadmissible. Rule 606(b)(1). The Rule contains three specific exceptions-allowing testimony "about whether (A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention; (B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or (C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form," Rule 606(b)(2)-but the District Court found none of these exceptions to be applicable.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. 721 F.3d 606 (2013). It first held that Warger's proffered evidence did not fall within the "extraneous prejudicial evidence" exception set forth in Rule 606(b)(2)(A). The court explained that "[j]urors' personal experiences do not constitute extraneous information; it is unavoidable they will bring such innate experiences into the jury room." Id.,at 611. Next, the court rejected Warger's alternative argument that Rule 606(b)is wholly inapplicable when a litigant offers evidence to show that a juror was dishonest during voir dire. Acknowledging that there was a split among the Federal Courts of Appeals on this question, the Eighth Circuit joined those Circuits that had held that Rule 606(b)applies to any proceeding in which the jury's verdict might be invalidated, including efforts to demonstrate that a juror lied during voir dire. Compare id.,at 611-612(citing Williams v. Price,343 F.3d 223, 235-237 (C.A.3 2003), and United States v. Benally,546 F.3d 1230, 1235 (C.A.10 2008)), with Hard v. Burlington N.R.,812 F.2d 482, 485 (C.A.9 1987)("Statements which tend to show deceit during voir dire are not barred by [Rule 606(b)]"), and Maldonado v. Missouri P.R. Co.,798 F.2d 764, 770 (C.A.5 1986)(same).
We granted certiorari, 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1491, 188 L.Ed.2d 374 (2014), and now affirm.
II
We hold that Rule 606(b)applies to juror testimony during a proceeding in which a party seeks to secure a new trial on the ground that a juror lied during voir dire. In doing so, we simply accord Rule 606(b)'s terms their plain meaning. The Rule, after all, applies "[d]uring an inquiry into the validity of a verdict." Rule 606(b)(1). A postverdict motion for a new trial on the ground of voir dire dishonesty plainly entails "an inquiry into the validity of [the] verdict": If a juror was dishonest during voir direand an honest response would have provided a valid basis to challenge that juror for cause, the verdict must be invalidated. See McDonough, 464 U.S., at 556, 104 S.Ct. 845.
This understanding of the text of Rule 606(b)is consistent with the underlying common-law rule on which it was based. Although some common-law courts would have permitted evidence of jury deliberations to be introduced to demonstrate juror dishonesty during voir dire,the majority would not, and the language of Rule 606(b)reflects Congress' enactment of the more restrictive version of the common-law rule.
Rule 606(b)had its genesis in Vaise v. Delaval,1 T.R. 11, 99 Eng. Rep. 944 (K.B. 1785), in which Lord Mansfield held inadmissible an affidavit from two jurors claiming that the jury had decided the case through a game of chance. See 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2352, p. 696 (J. McNaughton rev. 1961). The rule soon took root in the United States, id.,at 696-697, where it was viewed as both promoting the finality of verdicts and insulating the jury from outside influences, see McDonald v. Pless,238 U.S. 264, 267-268, 35 S.Ct. 783, 59 L.Ed. 1300 (1915).
Some versions of the rule were narrower than others. Under what was sometimes known as the "Iowa" approach, juror testimony regarding deliberations was excluded only to the extent that it related to matters that " 'inhere[d] in the verdict,' " which generally consisted of evidence of the jurors' subjective intentions and thought processes in reaching a verdict. 3 C. Mueller & L. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 6:16, p. 70 (4th ed.2013); 8 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2353, 2354, at 699-702.A number of courts adhering to the Iowa rule held that testimony regarding jury deliberations is admissible when used to challenge juror conduct during voir dire. See, e.g.,Mathisen v. Norton,187 Wash. 240, 244-246, 60 P.2d 1, 3-4 (1936); Williams v. Bridges,140 Cal.App. 537, 538-541, 35 P.2d 407, 408-409 (1934).
But other courts applied a broader version of the anti-impeachment rule. Under this version, sometimes called the "federal" approach, litigants were prohibited from using evidence of jury deliberations unless it was offered to show that an "extraneous matter" had influenced the jury. See 3 Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 6:16, at 71; Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates, 56 F.R.D. 183, 265 (1973). The "great majority" of appellate courts applying this version of the rule held jury deliberations evidence inadmissible even if used to demonstrate dishonesty during voir dire. Wilson v. Wiggins,54 Ariz. 240, 246, 94 P.2d 870, 872 (1939); see, e.g.,Willis v. Davis,333 P.2d 311, 314 (Okla.1958); Turner v. Hall's Adm'x,252 S.W.2d 30, 34 (Ky.1952); Hinkel v. Oregon Chair Co., 80 Ore. 404, 406, 156 P. 438, 439 (1916); State v. Cloud,130 La. 955, 958-960, 58 So. 827, 828-829 (1912); Payne v. Burke,236 App.Div. 527, 528-530, 260 N.Y.S. 259, 260-262 (1932).
This Court occasionally employed language that might have suggested a preference for the Iowa rule. See Hyde v. United States,225 U.S. 347, 383-384, 32 S.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 1114 (1912)("[W]e think the rule expressed in Wright v. Illinois & Miss. Tel. Co.,20 Iowa 195 [1866], ... should apply, that the testimony of jurors should not be received to show matters which essentially inhere in the verdict itself and necessarily depend upon the testimony of the jurors and can receive no corroboration"); Mattox v. United States,146 U.S. 140, 148-149, 13 S.Ct. 50, 36 L.Ed. 917 (1892)(quoting at length a Kansas Supreme Court decision setting out the Iowa test). But to the extent that these decisions created any question as to which approach this Court followed, McDonald v. Plesslargely settled matters. There, we held that juror affidavits were not admissible to show that jurors had entered a "quotient" verdict, precisely the opposite of the result reached by the Iowa Supreme Court in its decision establishing the Iowa approach. Compare 238 U.S., at 265, 268, 35 S.Ct. 783, with Wright v. Illinois & Miss. Tel. Co.,20 Iowa 195, 211-212 (1866). In doing so, we observed that although decisions in a few States made admissible a "juror's affidavit as to an overt act of misconduct, which was capable of being controverted by other jurors," the argument in favor of that approach (i.e.,the Iowa rule) had not been generally accepted, because permitting such evidence "would open the door to the most pernicious arts and tampering with jurors." 238 U.S., at 268, 35 S.Ct. 783(internal quotation marks omitted).
Our subsequent decision in Clark v. United States,289 U.S. 1, 53 S.Ct. 465, 77 L.Ed. 993 (1933), was consistent with our apparent rejection of the Iowa approach. In Clark,the Government had prosecuted for contempt a juror who, during voir direin a prior case, had falsely denied knowing the defendant. Id.,at 6-8, 53 S.Ct. 465. We held that the prosecution could introduce evidence of what had occurred during deliberations in the prior case, rejecting the juror's argument that these communications were privileged. We were careful to explain, however, that nothing in our decision was "at variance with the rule ... that the testimony of a juror is not admissible for the impeachment of his verdict." Id.,at 18, 53 S.Ct. 465. This was because the verdict in the original case was not at issue, and therefore "the rule against impeachment [was] wholly unrelated to the problem ... before us." Ibid.; accord, McDonald,238 U.S., at 269, 35 S.Ct. 783. Clarkthus clarified that the rule against jurors' impeaching their verdicts applies only in a proceeding actually impeaching that verdict-precisely the line Rule 606(b)draws when it refers to an "inquiry into the validity of a verdict."
In any event, these decisions predated Congress' enactment of Rule 606(b), and Congress was undoubtedly free to prescribe a broader version of the anti-impeachment rule than we had previously applied. The language of the Rule it adopted clearly reflects the federal approach: As enacted, Rule 606(b)prohibited the use of anyevidence of juror deliberations, subject only to the express exceptions for extraneous information and outside influences.
For those who consider legislative history relevant, here it confirms that this choice of language was no accident. Congress rejected a prior version of the Rule that, in accordance with the Iowa approach, would have prohibited juror testimony only as to the "effect of anything upon ... [any] juror's mind or emotions ... or concerning his mental processes." Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Revised Draft of Proposed Rules of Evidence for the United States Courts and Magistrates, 51 F.R.D. 315, 387 (1971); see Tanner v. United States,483 U.S. 107, 123-125, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987)(detailing the legislative history of the Rule). Thus Congress "specifically understood, considered, and rejected a version of Rule 606(b)" that would have likely permitted the introduction of evidence of deliberations to show dishonesty during voir dire. Id.,at 125, 107 S.Ct. 2739.
III
A
Seeking to rebut this straightforward understanding of Rule 606(b), Warger first insists that the proceedings that follow a motion for new trial based on dishonesty during voir diredo not involve an "inquiry into the validity of the verdict." His argument is as follows: Under McDonough,a party moving for a new trial on the basis of voir diredishonesty need not show that this dishonesty had an effect on the verdict. See 464 U.S., at 556, 104 S.Ct. 845. Although a successful claim will result in vacatur of the judgment, vacatur is simply the remedyfor the McDonougherror, just as it may be the remedy for a variety of errors that have nothing to do with the manner in which the jury reached its verdict. See, e.g.,United States v. Davila,569 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 2139, 2149, 186 L.Ed.2d 139 (2013)(listing certain " 'structural' " errors warranting "automatic reversal" of a criminal conviction). Therefore, Warger asserts, the "inquiry begins and ends with what happened during voir dire." Brief for Petitioner 19-20.
We are not persuaded. Warger, it seems, would restrict Rule 606(b)'s application to those claims of error for which a court must examine the manner in which the jury reached its verdict-claims, one might say, involving an inquiry into the jury's verdict. But the "inquiry" to which the Rule refers is one into the "validityof the verdict," not into the verdict itself. The Rule does not focus on the means by which deliberations evidence might be used to invalidate a verdict. It does not say "during an inquiry into jury deliberations," or prohibit the introduction of evidence of deliberations "for use in determining whether an asserted error affected the jury's verdict." It simply applies "[d]uring an inquiry into the validity of the verdict"-that is, during a proceedingin which the verdict may be rendered invalid. Whether or not a juror's alleged misconduct during voir direhad a direct effect on the jury's verdict, the motion for a new trial requires a court to determine whether the verdict can stand.
B
Next, Warger contends that excluding jury deliberations evidence tending to show that a juror lied during voir direis unnecessary to fulfill Congress' apparent objectives of encouraging full and open debate in the jury room and preventing the harassment of former jurors. He observes that jurors remain free to, and may sometimes be forced to, disclose what happened in the jury room, and that ethical rules limit the ability of parties to harass jurors following trial. But these are arguments against Rule 606(b)generally, not arguments for the particular exception to the Rule that Warger seeks. Congress' enactment of Rule 606(b)was premised on the concerns that the use of deliberations evidence to challenge verdicts would represent a threat to both jurors and finality in those circumstances not covered by the Rule's express exceptions. Warger cannot escape the scope of the Rule Congress adopted simply by asserting that its concerns were misplaced.
C
Nor do we accept Warger's contention that we must adopt his interpretation of Rule 606(b)so as to avoid constitutional concerns. The Constitution guarantees both criminal and civil litigants a right to an impartial jury. See, e.g.,Sheppard v. Maxwell,384 U.S. 333, 362, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966); Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co.,328 U.S. 217, 220, 66 S.Ct. 984, 90 L.Ed. 1181 (1946). And we have made clear that voir direcan be an essential means of protecting this right. See, e.g.,Turner v. Murray,476 U.S. 28, 36, 106 S.Ct. 1683, 90 L.Ed.2d 27 (1986)(plurality opinion); Ham v. South Carolina,409 U.S. 524, 527, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973). These principles, Warger asserts, require that parties be allowed to use evidence of deliberations to demonstrate that a juror lied during voir dire.
Given the clarity of both the text and history of Rule 606(b), however, the canon of constitutional avoidance has no role to play here. The canon "is a tool for choosing between competing plausible interpretations" of a provision. Clark v. Suarez Martinez,543 U.S. 371, 381, 125 S.Ct. 716, 160 L.Ed.2d 734 (2005). It "has no application in the absence of ... ambiguity." United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative,532 U.S. 483, 494, 121 S.Ct. 1711, 149 L.Ed.2d 722 (2001). We see none here.
Moreover, any claim that Rule 606(b)is unconstitutional in circumstances such as these is foreclosed by our decision in Tanner. In Tanner,we concluded that Rule 606(b)precluded a criminal defendant from introducing evidence that multiple jurors had been intoxicated during trial, rejecting the contention that this exclusion violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to " 'a tribunal both impartial and mentally competent to afford a hearing.' " 483 U.S., at 126, 107 S.Ct. 2739(quoting Jordan v. Massachusetts,225 U.S. 167, 176, 32 S.Ct. 651, 56 L.Ed. 1038 (1912)). We reasoned that the defendant's right to an unimpaired jury was sufficiently protected by voir dire,the observations of court and counsel during trial, and the potential use of "nonjuror evidence" of misconduct. 483 U.S., at 127, 107 S.Ct. 2739. Similarly here, a party's right to an impartial jury remains protected despite Rule 606(b)'s removal of one means of ensuring that jurors are unbiased. Even if jurors lie in voir dire in a way that conceals bias, juror impartiality is adequately assured by the parties' ability to bring to the court's attention any evidence of bias before the verdict is rendered, and to employ nonjuror evidence even after the verdict is rendered.
IV
We further hold, consonant with the Eighth Circuit, that the affidavit Warger sought to introduce was not admissible under Rule 606(b)(2)(A)'s exception for evidence as to whether "extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention."
Generally speaking, information is deemed "extraneous" if it derives from a source "external" to the jury. See Tanner,483 U.S., at 117, 107 S.Ct. 2739. "External" matters include publicity and information related specifically to the case the jurors are meant to decide, while "internal" matters include the general body of experiences that jurors are understood to bring with them to the jury room. See id.,at 117-119, 107 S.Ct. 2739; 27 C. Wright & V. Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6075, pp. 520-521 (2d ed. 2007). Here, the excluded affidavit falls on the "internal" side of the line: Whipple's daughter's accident may well have informed her general views about negligence liability for car crashes, but it did not provide either her or the rest of the jury with any specific knowledge regarding Shauers' collision with Warger.
Indeed, Warger does not argue that Whipple's statements related to "extraneous" information in this sense. Instead, he contends that because Whipple would have been disqualified from the jury had she disclosed her daughter's accident, anyinformation she shared with the other jurors was extraneous.
We cannot agree that whenever a juror should have been excluded from the jury, anything that juror says is necessarily "extraneous" within the meaning of Rule 606(b)(2)(A). Were that correct, parties would find it quite easy to avoid Rule 606(b)'s limitations. As discussed above, Congress adopted the restrictive version of the anti-impeachment rule, one that common-law courts had concluded precludes parties from using deliberations evidence to prove juror dishonesty during voir dire. But if Warger's understanding of the "extraneous" information exception were accepted, then any time a party could use such evidence to show that a juror's "correct response [during voir dire] would have provided a valid basis for a challenge"-a prerequisite for relief under McDonough,464 U.S., at 556, 104 S.Ct. 845-all evidence of what that juror said during deliberations would be admissible. The "extraneous" information exception would swallow much of the rest of Rule 606(b).
Even if such a result were not precluded by Congress' apparent intent to adopt the restrictive federal approach, it is foreclosed by Tanner,which relied upon the doctrine that "treat[s] allegations of the physical or mental incompetence of a juror as 'internal' rather than 'external' matters." 483 U.S., at 118, 107 S.Ct. 2739. Tannercited, in particular, cases holding that evidence of jurors' insanity, inability to understand English, and hearing impairments are all "internal" matters subject to exclusion under Rule 606(b). Id.,at 119, 107 S.Ct. 2739. Were we to follow Warger's understanding of the "extraneous information" exception, all these cases, including Tanner,would have been wrongly decided: If the jurors were not able to serve on the jury in the first place, or should have been dismissed for their misconduct during the trial, then what they said or did during deliberations would necessarily be "extraneous" and admissible. Tanner's implicit rejection of this view easily extends from the sort of juror incompetence considered in that case to the alleged bias considered here. Whether a juror would have been struck from the jury because of incompetence or bias, the mere fact that a juror would have been struck does not make admissible evidence regarding that juror's conduct and statements during deliberations.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The Iowa rule derived from Wright v. Illinois & Miss. Tel. Co.,20 Iowa 195 (1866), in which the Iowa Supreme Court held that a trial court considering a motion for a new trial should have accepted the affidavits of four jurors who claimed that their damages verdict had been determined by taking the average of the sums each juror thought proper (a "quotient" verdict). Id.,at 212-213. The Wrightcourt reasoned that, unlike evidence of a juror's subjective intentions in reaching a verdict, whether the verdict had been obtained in this fashion was an "independent fact" and thus could and should be proved by any available evidence.Id.,at 211.
The additional exception for mistakes made in entering the verdict on the verdict form was adopted in 2006. See 547 U.S. 1281, 1286, --- S.Ct. ----, --- L.Ed.2d ----.
There may be cases of juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged. If and when such a case arises, the Court can consider whether the usual safeguards are or are not sufficient to protect the integrity of the process. We need not consider the question, however, for those facts are not presented here.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986), this Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs the exercise of peremptory challenges by a prosecutor in a criminal trial. The Court explained that although a defendant has “no right to a ‘petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race,’ ” id., at 85, quoting Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 305 (1880), the “defendant does have the right to be tried by a jury whose members are selected pursuant to nondiscriminatory criteria,” 476 U. S., at 85-86. Since Batson, we have reaffirmed repeatedly our commitment to jury selection procedures that are fair and nondiscriminatory. We have recognized that whether the trial is criminal or civil, potential jurors, as well as litigants, have an equal protection right to jury selection procedures that are free from state-sponsored group stereotypes rooted in, and reflective of, historical prejudice. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S. 400 (1991); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614 (1991); Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U. S. 42 (1992).
Although premised on equal protection principles that apply equally to gender discrimination, all our recent cases defining the scope of Batson involved alleged racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Today we are faced with the question whether the Equal Protection Clause forbids intentional discrimination on the basis of gender, just as it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. We hold that gender, like race, is an unconstitutional proxy for juror competence and impartiality.
I
On behalf of relator T. B., the mother of a minor child, respondent State of Alabama filed a complaint for paternity and child support against petitioner J. E. B. in the District Court of Jackson County, Alabama. On October 21, 1991, the matter was called for trial and jury selection began. The trial court assembled a panel of 36 potential jurors, 12 males and 24 females. After the court excused three jurors for cause, only 10 of the remaining 33 jurors were male. The State then used 9 of its 10 peremptory strikes to remove male jurors; petitioner used all but one of his strikes to remove female jurors. As a result, all the selected jurors were female.
Before the jury was empaneled, petitioner objected to the State’s peremptory challenges on the ground that they were exercised against male jurors solely on the basis of gender, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. App. 22. Petitioner argued that the logic and reasoning of Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibits peremptory strikes solely on the basis of race, similarly forbids intentional discrimination on the basis of gender. The court rejected petitioner’s claim and empaneled the all-female jury. App. 23. The jury found petitioner to be the father of the child, and the court entered an order directing him to pay child support. On postjudgment motion, the court reaffirmed its ruling that Batson does not extend to gender-based peremptory challenges. App. 33. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, 606 So. 2d 156 (1992), relying on Alabama precedent, see, e. g., Murphy v. State, 596 So. 2d 42 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 827 (1992), and Ex parte Murphy, 596 So. 2d 45 (Ala. 1992). The Supreme Court of Alabama denied certiorari, No. 1911717 (Oct. 23, 1992).
We granted certiorari, 508 U. S. 905 (1993), to resolve a question that has created a conflict of authority — whether the Equal Protection Clause forbids peremptory challenges on the basis of gender as well as on the basis of race. Today we reaffirm what, by now, should be axiomatic: Intentional discrimination on the basis of gender by state actors violates the Equal Protection Clause, particularly where, as here, the discrimination serves to ratify and perpetuate invidious, archaic, and overbroad stereotypes about the relative abilities of men and women.
II
Discrimination on the basis of gender in the exercise of peremptory challenges is a relatively recent phenomenon. Gender-based peremptory strikes were hardly practicable during most of our country’s existence, since, until the 20th century, women were completely excluded from jury service. So well entrenched was this exclusion of women that in 1880 this Court, while finding that the exclusion of African-American men from juries violated the Fourteenth Amendment, expressed no doubt that a State “may confine the selection [of jurors] to males.” Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S., at 310; see also Fay v. New York, 332 U. S. 261, 289-290 (1947).
Many States continued to exclude women from jury service well into the present century, despite the fact that women attained suffrage upon ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. States that did permit women to serve on juries often erected other barriers, such as registration requirements and automatic exemptions, designed to deter women from exercising their right to jury service. See, e. g., Fay v. New York, 332 U. S., at 289 (“[I]n 15 of the 28 states which permitted women to serve [on juries in 1942], they might claim exemption because of their sex”); Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57 (1961) (upholding affirmative registration statute that exempted women from mandatory jury service).
The prohibition of women on juries was derived from the English common law which, according to Blackstone, rightfully excluded women from juries under “the doctrine of propter defectum sexus, literally, the ‘defect of sex.’” United States v. De Gross, 960 F. 2d 1433, 1438 (CA9 1992) (en banc), quoting 2 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *362. In this country, supporters of the exclusion of women from juries tended to couch their objections in terms of the ostensible need to protect women from the ugliness and depravity of trials. Women were thought to be too fragile and virginal to withstand the polluted courtroom atmosphere. See Bailey v. State, 215 Ark. 53, 61, 219 S. W. 2d 424, 428 (1949) (“Criminal court trials often involve testimony of the foulest kind, and they sometimes require consideration of indecent conduct, the use of filthy and loathsome words, references to intimate sex relationships, and other elements that would prove humiliating, embarrassing and degrading to a lady”); In re Goodell, 39 Wis. 232, 245-246 (1875) (endorsing statutory ineligibility of women for admission to the bar because “[r]everence for all womanhood would suffer in the public spectacle of women... so engaged”); Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130, 141 (1873) (concurring opinion) (“[T]he civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.... The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator”). Cf. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 684 (1973) (plurality opinion) (This “attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’... put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage”).
This Court in Ballard v. United States, 329 U. S. 187 (1946), first questioned the fundamental fairness of denying women the right to serve on juries. Relying on its supervisory powers over the federal courts, it held that women may not be excluded from the venire in federal trials in States where women were eligible for jury service under local law. In response to the argument that women have no superior or unique perspective, such that defendants are denied a fair trial by virtue of their exclusion from jury panels, the Court explained:
“It is said... that an all male panel drawn from the various groups within a community will be as truly representative as if women were included. The thought is that the factors which tend to influence the action of women are the same as those which influence the action of men — personality, background, economic status — and not sex. Yet it is not enough to say that women when sitting as jurors neither act nor tend to act as a class. Men likewise do not act like a class.... The truth is that the two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one is different from a community composed of both; the subtle interplay of influence one on the other is among the imponderables. To insulate the courtroom from either may not in a given case make an iota of difference. Yet a flavor, a distinct quality is lost if either sex is excluded.” Id., at 193-194 (footnotes omitted).
Fifteen years later, however, the Court still was unwilling to translate its appreciation for the value of women’s contribution to civic life into an enforceable right to equal treatment under state laws governing jury service. In Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S., at 61, the Court found it reasonable, “[d]e-spite the enlightened emancipation of women,” to exempt women from mandatory jury service by statute, allowing women to serve on juries only if they volunteered to serve. The Court justified the differential exemption policy on the ground that women, unlike men, occupied a unique position “as the center of home and family life.” Id., at 62.
In 1975, the Court finally repudiated the reasoning of Hoyt and struck down, under the Sixth Amendment, an affirmative registration statute nearly identical to the one at issue in Hoyt. See Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522 (1975). We explained: “Restricting jury service to only special groups or excluding identifiable segments playing major roles in the community cannot be squared with the constitutional concept of jury trial.” Id., at 530. The diverse and representative character of the jury must be maintained “‘partly as assurance of a diffused impartiality and partly because sharing in the administration of justice is a phase of civic responsibility.’” Id., at 530-531, quoting Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U. S. 217, 227 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). See also Duren v. Missouri, 439 U. S. 357 (1979).
Ill
Taylor relied on Sixth Amendment principles, but the opinion’s approach is consistent with the heightened equal protection scrutiny afforded gender-based classifications. Since Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971), this Court consistently has subjected gender-based classifications to heightened scrutiny in recognition of the real danger that government policies that professedly are based on reasonable considerations in fact may be reflective of “archaic and over-broad” generalizations about gender, see Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U. S. 498, 506-507 (1975), or based on “outdated misconceptions concerning the role of females in the home rather than in the ‘marketplace and world of ideas.’ ” Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 198-199 (1976). See also Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 441 (1985) (differential treatment of the sexes “very likely reflects] outmoded notions of the relative capabilities of men and women”).
Despite the heightened scrutiny afforded distinctions based on gender, respondent argues that gender discrimination in the selection of the petit jury should be permitted, though discrimination on the basis of race is not. Respondent suggests that “gender discrimination in this country... has never reached the level of discrimination” against African-Americans, and therefore gender discrimination, unlike racial discrimination, is tolerable in the courtroom. Brief for Respondent 9.
While the prejudicial attitudes toward women in this country have not been identical to those held toward racial minorities, the similarities between the experiences of racial minorities and women, in some contexts, “overpower those differences.” Note, Beyond Batson: Eliminating Gender-Based Peremptory Challenges, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1920, 1921 (1992). As a plurality of this Court observed in Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S., at 685:
“[Throughout much of the 19th century the position of women in our society was, in many respects, comparable to that of blacks under the pre-Civil War slave codes. Neither slaves nor women could hold office, serve on juries, or bring suit in their own names, and married women traditionally were denied the legal capacity to hold or convey property or to serve as legal guardians of their own children.... And although blacks were guaranteed the right to vote in 1870, women were denied even that right — which is itself ‘preservative of other basic civil and political rights’ — until adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment half a century later.” (Footnote omitted.)
Certainly, with respect to jury service, African-Americans and women share a history of total exclusion, a history which came to an end for women many years after the embarrassing chapter in our history came to an end for African-Americans.
We need not determine, however, whether women or racial minorities have suffered more at the hands of discriminatory state actors during the decades of our Nation’s history. It is necessary only to acknowledge that “our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination,” id., at 684, a history which warrants the heightened scrutiny we afford all gender-based classifications today. Under our equal protection jurisprudence, gender-based classifications require “an exceedingly persuasive justification” in order to survive constitutional scrutiny. See Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 273 (1979). See also Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S. 718, 724 (1982); Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455, 461 (1981). Thus, the only question is whether discrimination on the basis of gender in jury selection substantially furthers the State’s legitimate interest in achieving a fair and impartial trial. In making this assessment, we do not weigh the value of peremptory challenges as an institution against our asserted commitment to eradicate invidious discrimination from the courtroom. Instead, we consider whether peremptory challenges based on gender stereotypes provide substantial aid to a litigant’s effort to secure a fair and impartial jury.
Far from proffering an exceptionally persuasive justification for its gender-based peremptory challenges, respondent maintains that its decision to strike virtually all the males from the jury in this case “may reasonably have been based upon the perception, supported by history, that men otherwise totally qualified to serve upon a jury in any case might be more sympathetic and receptive to the arguments of a man alleged in a paternity action to be the father of an out-of-wedlock child, while women equally qualified to serve upon a jury might be more sympathetic and receptive to the arguments of the complaining,witness who bore the child.” Brief for Respondent 10.
We shall not accept as a defense to gender-based peremptory challenges “the very stereotype the law condemns.” Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S., at 410. Respondent’s rationale, not unlike those regularly expressed for gender-based strikes, is reminiscent of the arguments advanced to justify the total exclusion of women from juries. Respondent offers virtually no support for the conclusion that gender alone is an accurate predictor of juror’s attitudes; yet it urges this Court to condone the same stereotypes that justified the wholesale exclusion of women from juries and the ballot box. Respondent seems to assume that gross generalizations that would be deemed impermissible if made on the basis of race are somehow permissible when made on the basis of gender.
Discrimination in jury selection, whether based on race or on gender, causes harm to the litigants, the community, and the individual jurors who are wrongfully excluded from participation in the judicial process. The litigants are harmed by the risk that the prejudice that motivated the discriminatory selection of the jury will infect the entire proceedings. See Edmonson, 500 U. S., at 628 (discrimination in the courtroom “raises serious questions as to the fairness of the proceedings conducted there”). The community is harmed by the State’s participation in the perpetuation of invidious group stereotypes and the inevitable loss of confidence in our judicial system that state-sanctioned discrimination in the courtroom engenders.
When state actors exercise peremptory challenges in reliance on gender stereotypes, they ratify and reinforce prejudicial views of the relative abilities of men and women. Because these stereotypes have wreaked injustice in so many other spheres of our country’s public life, active discrimination by litigants on the basis of gender during jury selection “invites cynicism respecting the jury’s neutrality and its obligation to adhere to the law.” Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S., at 412. The potential for cynicism is particularly acute in cases where gender-related issues are prominent, such as cases involving rape, sexual harassment, or paternity. Discriminatory use of peremptory challenges may create the impression that the judicial system has acquiesced in suppressing full participation by one gender or that the “deck has been stacked” in favor of one side. See id., at 413 (“The verdict will not be accepted or understood [as fair] if the jury is chosen by unlawful means at the outset”).
In recent cases we have emphasized that individual jurors themselves have a right to nondiscriminatory jury selection procedures. See Powers, supra, Edmonson, supra, and Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U. S. 42 (1992). Contrary to respondent’s suggestion, this right extends to both men and women. See Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S, at 723 (that a state practice “discriminates against males rather than against females does not exempt it from scrutiny or reduce the standard of review”); cf. Brief for Respondent 9 (arguing that men deserve no protection from gender discrimination in jury selection because they are not victims of historical discrimination). All persons, when granted the opportunity to serve on a jury, have the right not to be excluded summarily because of discriminatory and stereotypical presumptions that reflect and reinforce patterns of historical discrimination. Striking individual jurors on the assumption that they hold particular views simply because of their gender is “practically a brand upon them, affixed by the law, an assertion of their inferiority.” Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S., at 308. It denigrates the dignity of the excluded juror, and, for a woman, reinvokes a history of exclusion from political participation. The message it sends to all those in the courtroom, and all those who may later learn of the discriminatory act, is that certain individuals, for no reason other than gender, are presumed unqualified by state actors to decide important questions upon which reasonable persons could disagree.
IV
Our conclusion that litigants may not strike potential jurors solely on the basis of gender does not imply the elimination of all peremptory challenges. Neither does it conflict with a State’s legitimate interest in using such challenges in its effort to secure a fair and impartial jury. Parties still may remove jurors who they feel might be less acceptable than others on the panel; gender simply may not serve as a proxy for bias. Parties may also exercise their peremptory challenges to remove from the venire any group or class of individuals normally subject to “rational basis” review. See Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S., at 439-442; Clark v. Jeter, 486 U. S. 456, 461 (1988). Even strikes based on characteristics that are disproportionately associated with one gender could be appropriate, absent a showing of pretext.
If conducted properly, voir dire can inform litigants about potential jurors, making reliance upon stereotypical and pejorative notions about a particular gender or race both unnecessary and unwise. Voir dire provides a means of discovering actual or implied bias and a firmer basis upon which the parties may exercise their peremptory challenges intelligently. See, e. g., Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539, 602 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (voir dire “facilitate[s] intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges and [helps] uncover factors that would dictate disqualification for cause”); United States v. Witt, 718 F. 2d 1494, 1497 (CA10 1983) (“Without an adequate foundation [laid by voir dire], counsel cannot exercise sensitive and intelligent peremptory challenges”).
The experience in the many jurisdictions that have barred gender-based challenges belies the claim that litigants and trial courts are incapable of complying with a rule barring strikes based on gender. See n. 1, supra (citing state and federal jurisdictions that have extended Batson to gender). As with race-based Batson claims, a party alleging gender discrimination must make a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination before the party exercising the challenge is required to explain the basis for the strike. Batson, 476 U. S., at 97. When an explanation is required, it need not rise to the level of a “for cause” challenge; rather, it merely must be based on a juror characteristic other than gender, and the proffered explanation may not be pretextual. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U. S. 352 (1991).
Failing to provide jurors the same protection against gender discrimination as race discrimination could frustrate the purpose of Batson itself. Because gender and race are overlapping categories, gender can be used as a pretext for racial discrimination. Allowing parties to remove racial minorities from the jury not because of their race, but because of their gender, contravenes well-established equal protection principles and could insulate effectively racial discrimination from judicial scrutiny.
V
Equal opportunity to participate in the fair administration of justice is fundamental to our democratic system. It not only furthers the goals of the jury system. It reaffirms the promise of equality under the law — that all citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, have the chance to take part directly in our democracy. Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S., at 407 (“Indeed, with the exception of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the democratic process”). When persons are excluded from participation in our democratic processes solely because of race or gender, this promise of equality dims, and the integrity of our judicial system is jeopardized.
In view of these concerns, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination in jury selection on the basis of gender, or on the assumption that an individual will be biased in a particular case for no reason other than the fáct that the person happens to be a woman or happens to be a man. As with race, the “core guarantee of equal protection, ensuring citizens that their State will not discriminate..., would be meaningless were we to approve the exclusion of jurors on the basis of such assumptions, which arise solely from the jurors’ [gender].” Batson, 476 U. S., at 97-98.
The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Federal Courts of Appeals have divided on the issue. See United States v. De Gross, 913 F. 2d 1417 (CA9 1990), and 960 F. 2d 1433, 1437-1443 (1992) (en banc) (extending Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986), to prohibit gender-based peremptory challenges in both criminal and civil trials); cf. United States v. Nichols, 937 F. 2d 1257, 1262-1264 (CA7 1991) (declining to extend Batson to gender), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 1080 (1992); United States v. Hamilton, 850 F. 2d 1038, 1042-1043 (CA4 1988) (same), cert. dism’d, 489 U. S. 1094 (1989), and cert. denied, 493 U. S. 1069 (1990); United States v. Broussard, 987 F. 2d 215, 218-220 (CA5 1993) (same).
State courts also have considered the constitutionality of gender-based peremptory challenges. See Laidler v. State, 627 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. App. 1993) (extending Batson to gender); State v. Burch, 65 Wash. App. 828, 830 P. 2d 357 (1992) (same, relying on State and Federal Constitutions);Di Donato v. Santini, 232 Cal. App. 3d 721, 283 Cal. Rptr. 751 (1991), review denied (Cal., Oct. 2, 1991); Tyler v. State, 330 Md. 261, 623 A. 2d 648 (1993) (relying on State Constitution); People v. Mitchell, 228 111. App. 3d 917, 593 N. E. 2d 882 (1992) (same), aff’d in part and vacated in relevant part, 155 Ill. 2d 643, 602 N. E. 2d 467 (1993); State v. Gonzales, 111 N. M. 590, 808 P. 2d 40 (App.) (same), cert. denied, 111 N. M. 590, 806 P. 2d 65 (1991); State v. Levinson, 71 Haw. 492, 498-499, 795 P. 2d 845, 849 (1990) (same); People v. Irizarry, 165 App. Div. 2d 715, 560 N. Y. S. 2d 279 (1990) (same); Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 395 Mass. 568, 570, 481 N. E. 2d 188,190 (1985) (same); cf. State v. Culver, 293 Neb. 228, 444 N. W. 2d 662 (1989) (refusing to extend Batson to gender); State v. Clay, 779 S. W. 2d 673, 676 (Mo. App. 1989) (same); State v. Adams, 533 So. 2d 1060,1063 (La. App. 1988) (same), cert. denied, 540 So. 2d 338 (La. 1989); State v. Oliviera, 534 A. 2d 867, 870 (R. I. 1987) (same); Murphy v. State, 596 So. 2d 42 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (same), cert. denied, 596 So. 2d 45 (Ala.), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 827 (1992).
There was one brief exception. Between 1870 and 1871, women were permitted to serve on juries in Wyoming Territory. They were no longer allowed on juries after a new chief justice who disfavored the practice was appointed in 1871. See Abrahamson, Justice and Juror, 20 Ga. L. Rev. 257, 263-264 (1986).
In 1947, women still had not been granted the right to serve on juries in 16 States. See Rudolph, Women on Juries — Voluntary or Compulsory?, 44 J. Am. Jud. Soc. 206 (1961). As late as 1961, three States, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, continued to exclude women from jury service. See Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57, 62 (1961). Indeed, Alabama did not recognize women as a “cognizable group” for jury-service purposes until after the 1966 decision in White v. Crook, 251 F. Supp. 401 (MD Ala.) (three-judge court).
In England there was at least one deviation from the general rule that only males could serve as jurors. If a woman was subject to capital punishment, or if a widow sought postponement of the disposition of her husband’s estate until birth of a child, a writ de ventre inspiciendo permitted the use of a jury of matrons to examine the woman to determine whether she was pregnant. But even when a jury of matrons was used, the examination took place in the presence of 12 men, who also composed part of the jury in such cases. The jury of matrons was used in the United States during the Colonial period, but apparently fell into disuse when the medical profession began to perform that function. See Note, Jury Service for Women, 12 U. Fla. L. Rev. 224, 224-225 (1959).
Taylor distinguished Hoyt by explaining that that case “did not involve a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community,” 419 U. S., at 534. The Court now, however, has stated that Taylor “in effect” overruled Hoyt. See Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828, n. 1 (1991).
Because we conclude that gender-based peremptory challenges are not substantially related to an important government objective, we once again need not decide whether classifications based on gender are inherently suspect. See Mississippi Univ. for Women, 458 U. S., at 724, n. 9; Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U. S. 7, 13 (1975); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U. S. 17, 26, n. (1993) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (“[I]t remains an open question whether ‘classifications based on gender are inherently suspect’ ”) (citations omitted).
Although peremptory challenges are valuable tools in jury trials, they “are not constitutionally protected fundamental rights; rather they are but one state-created means to the constitutional end of an impartial jury and a fair trial.” Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U. S. 42, 57 (1992).
Respondent argues that we should recognize a special state interest in this case: the State’s interest in establishing the paternity of a child born out of wedlock. Respondent contends that this interest justifies the use of gender-based peremptory challenges, since illegitimate children are themselves victims of historical discrimination and entitled to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
What respondent fails to recognize is that the only legitimate interest it could possibly have in the exercise of its peremptory challenges is securing a fair and impartial jury. See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614, 620 (1991) (“[The] sole purpose [of the peremptory challenge] is to permit litigants to assist the government in the selection of an impartial trier of fact”). This interest does not change with the parties or the causes. The State’s interest in every trial is to see that the proceedings are carried out in a fair, impartial, and nondiscriminatory manner.
Respondent cites one study in support of its quasi-empirical claim that women and men may have different attitudes about certain issues justifying the use of gender as a proxy for bias. See R. Hastie, S. Penrod, & N. Pennington, Inside the Jury 140 (1983). The authors conclude: “Neither student nor citizen judgments for typical criminal case materials have revealed differences between male and female verdict preferences.... The picture differs [only] for rape cases, where female jurors appear to be somewhat more conviction-prone than male jurors.” The majority of studies suggest that gender plays no identifiable role in jurors’ attitudes. See, e. g., V. Hans & N. Vidmar, Judging the Jury 76 (1986) (“[I]n the majority of studies there are no significant differences in the way men and women perceive and react to trials; yet a few studies find women more defense-oriented, while still others show women more favorable to the prosecutor”). Even in 1966, before women had a constitutional right to serve on juries, some commentators warned against using gender as a proxy for bias. See F. Busch, Law and Tactics in Jury Trials § 143, p. 207 (1949) (“In this age of general and specialized education, availed of generally by both men and women, it would appear unsound to base a peremptory challenge in any case upon the sole ground of sex...”).
A manual formerly used to instruct prosecutors in Dallas, Texas, provided the following advice: “T don’t like women jurors because I can’t trust them. They do, however, make the best jurors in cases involving crimes against children. It is possible that their “women’s intuition” can help you if you can’t win your case with the facts.’” Alschuler, The Supreme Court and the Jury: Voir Dire, Peremptory Challenges, and the Review of Jury Verdicts, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 153, 210 (1989). Another widely circulated trial manual speculated:
“If counsel is depending upon a clearly applicable rule of law and if he wants to avoid a verdict of ‘intuition’ or ‘sympathy,’ if his verdict in
amount is to be proved by clearly demonstrated blackboard figures for example, generally he would want a male juror.
“[But] women... are desired jurors when plaintiff is a man. A woman juror may see a man impeached from the beginning of the case to the end, but there is at least the chance [with] the woman juror (particularly if the man happens to be handsome or appealing) [that] the plaintiff’s derelictions in and out of court will be overlooked. A woman is inclined to forgive sin in the opposite sex; but definitely not her own.” 3 M. Belli, Modern Trials §§ 51.67 and 51.68, pp. 446-447 (2d ed. 1982).
Even if a measure of truth can be found in some of the gender stereotypes used to justify gender-based peremptory challenges, that fact alone cannot support discrimination on the basis of gender in jury selection. We have made abundantly clear in past eases that gender
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U. S. 502, 529 (2009) (Fox I), the Court held that the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to modify its indecency enforcement regime to regulate so-called fleeting expletives was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The Court then declined to address the constitutionality of the policy, however, because the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had yet to do so. On remand, the Court of Appeals found the policy was vague and, as a result, unconstitutional. 613 F. 3d 317 (2010). The case now returns to this Court for decision upon the constitutional question.
I
In Fox I, the Court described both the regulatory framework through which the Commission regulates broadcast indecency and the long procedural history of this case. The Court need not repeat all that history, but some preliminary discussion is necessary to understand the constitutional issue the case now presents.
A
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1464 provides that “[w]hoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined ... or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has been instructed by Congress to enforce § 1464 between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., see Public Telecommunications Act of 1992, § 16(a), 106 Stat. 954, note following 47 U. S. C. §303, p. 113 (Broadcasting of Indecent Programming). And the Commission has applied its regulations to radio and television broadcasters alike, see Fox I, supra, at 505-506; see also 47 CFR § 73.3999 (2010) (Commission regulation prohibiting the broadcast of any obscene material or any indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.). Although the Commission has had the authority to regulate indecent broadcasts under § 1464 since 1948 (and its predecessor commission, the Federal Radio Commission, since 1927), it did not begin to enforce § 1464 until the 1970's. See Campbell, Pacifica Reconsidered: Implications for the Current Controversy Over Broadcast Indecency, 63 Fed. Com. L. J. 195, 198 (2010).
This Court first reviewed the Commission’s indecency policy in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978). In Pacifica, the Commission determined that George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue was indecent. It contained “‘language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.’” Id., at 732 (quoting 56 F. C. C. 2d 94, 98 (1975)). This Court upheld the Commission’s ruling. The broadcaster’s statutory challenge was rejected. The Court held the Commission was not engaged in impermissible censorship within the meaning of 47 U. S. C. § 326 (1976 ed.), see 438 U. S., at 735-739, and that § 1464’s definition of indecency was not confined to speech with an appeal to the prurient interest, see id., at 738-741. Finding no First Amendment violation, the decision explained the constitutional standard under which regulations of broadcasters are assessed. It observed that “broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans,” id., at 748, and that “broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read,” id., at 749. In light of these considerations, “broadcasting . .. has received the most limited First Amendment protection.” Id., at 748. Under this standard the Commission’s order passed constitutional scrutiny. The Court did note the narrowness of its holding, explaining that it was not deciding whether “an occasional expletive . . . would justify any sanction.” Id., at 750; see also id., at 760-761 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (“[C]ertainly the Court’s holding . . . does not speak to cases involving the isolated use of a potentially offensive word in the course of a radio broadcast, as distinguished from the verbal shock treatment administered by respondent here”).
From 1978 to 1987, the Commission did not go beyond the narrow circumstances of Pacifica and brought no indecency enforcement actions. See In re Infinity Broadcasting Corp., 3 FCC Rcd. 930 (1987) (Infinity Order); see also In re Application of WGBH Educ. Foundation, 69 F. C. C. 2d 1250, 1254 (1978) (Commission declaring it “intend[s] strictly to observe the narrowness of the Pacifica holding”). Recognizing that Pacifica provided “no general prerogative to intervene in any case where words similar or identical to those in Pacifica are broadcast over a licensed radio or television station,” the Commission distinguished between the “repetitive occurrence of the ‘indecent’ words” (such as in the Carlin monologue) and an “isolated” or “occasional” expletive, that would not necessarily be actionable. 69 F. C. C. 2d, at 1254.
In 1987, the Commission determined it was applying the Pacifica standard in too narrow a way. It stated that in later cases its definition of indecent language would “appropriately includ[e] a broader range of material than the seven specific words at issue in [the Carlin monologue].” In re Pacifica Foundation Inc., 2 FCC Rcd. 2698, 2699 (Pacifica Order). Thus, the Commission indicated it would use the “generic definition of indecency” articulated in its 1975 Pacifica order, Infinity Order, 3 FCC Rcd., at 930, and assess the full context of allegedly indecent broadcasts rather than limiting its regulation to a “comprehensive index ... of indecent words or pictorial depictions,” id., at 932.
Even under this context based approach, the Commission continued to note the important difference between isolated and repeated broadcasts of indecent material. See ibid. (considering variables in determining whether material is patently offensive including “whether allegedly offensive material is isolated or fleeting”)- In the context of expletives, the Commission determined “deliberate and repetitive use in a patently offensive manner is a requisite to a finding of indecency.” Pacifica Order, 2 FCC Rcd., at 2699. For speech “involving the description or depiction of sexual or excretory functions . .. [t]he mere fact that specific words or phrases are not repeated does not mandate a finding that material that is otherwise patently offensive ... is not indecent.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted).
In 2001, the Commission issued a policy statement intended “to provide guidance to the broadcast industry regarding [its] caselaw interpreting 18 U. S. C. § 1464 and [its] enforcement policies with respect to broadcast indecency.” In re Industry Guidance on Commission’s Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency, 16 FCC Rcd. 7999. In that document the Commission restated that for material to be indecent it must depict sexual or excretory organs or activities and be patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. Id., at 8002. Describing the framework of what it considered patently offensive, the Commission explained that three factors had proved significant:
“(1) [T]he explicitness or graphic nature of the description or depiction of sexual or excretory organs or activities; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions of sexual or excretory organs or activities; (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate, or whether the material appears to have been presented for its shock value.” Id., at 8003 (emphasis deleted).
As regards the second of these factors, the Commission explained that “[Repetition of and persistent focus on sexual or excretory material have been cited consistently as factors that exacerbate the potential offensiveness of broadcasts. In contrast, where sexual or excretory references have been made once or have been passing or fleeting in nature, this characteristic has tended to weigh against a finding of indecency.” Id., at 8008. The Commission then gave examples of material that was not found indecent because it was fleeting and isolated, id., at 8008-8009 (citing, e. g., L. M. Communications of South Carolina, Inc. (WYBB(FM)), 7 FCC Rcd. 1595 (MMB 1992) (finding “a fleeting and isolated utterance” in the context of live and spontaneous programming not actionable)), and contrasted it with fleeting references that were found patently offensive in light of other factors, 16 FCC Rcd., at 8009 (citing, e. g., Tempe Radio, Inc. (KUPD-FM), 12 FCC Rcd. 21828 (MMB 1997) (finding fleeting language that clearly refers to sexual activity with a child to be patently offensive)).
B
It was against this regulatory background that the three incidents of alleged indecency at issue here took place. First, in the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, broadcast by respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., the singer Cher exclaimed during an unscripted acceptance speech: “I’ve also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right. So f*** ‘em.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 89a. Second, Fox broadcast the Billboard Music Awards again in 2003. There, a person named Nicole Richie made the following unscripted remark while presenting an award: “ ‘Have you ever tried to get cow s*** out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f ***ing simple.’ ” 613 F. 3d, at 323. The third incident involved an episode of NYPD Blue, a regular television show broadcast by respondent ABC Television Network. The episode broadcast on February 25, 2003, showed the nude buttocks of an adult female character for approximately seven seconds and for a moment the side of her breast. During the scene, in which the character was preparing to take a shower, a child portraying her boyfriend’s son entered the bathroom. A moment of awkwardness followed. 404 Fed. Appx. 530, 533-534 (CA2 2011). The Commission received indecency complaints about all three broadcasts. See Fox I, 556 U. S., at 510; 404 Fed. Appx., at 534.
After these incidents, but before the Commission issued notices of apparent liability to Fox and ABC, the Commission issued a decision sanctioning NBC for a comment made by the singer Bono during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards. Upon winning the award for Best Original Song, Bono exclaimed: “‘This is really, really, f***ing brilliant. Really, really great.’” In re Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the “Golden Globe Awards” Program, 19 FCC Rcd. 4975, 4976, n. 4 (2004) (Golden Globes Order). Reversing a decision by its enforcement bureau, the Commission found the use of the F-word actionably indecent. Id., at 4975-4976. The Commission held that the word was “one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language,” and thus found “any use of that word or a variation, in any context, inherently has a sexual connotation.” Id., at 4978-4979. Turning to the isolated nature of the expletive, the Commission reversed prior rulings that had found fleeting expletives not indecent. The Commission held “the mere fact that specific words or phrases are not sustained or repeated does not mandate a finding that material that is otherwise patently offensive to the broadcast medium is not indecent.” Id., at 4980; see also id., at 4982 (“Just as the Court [in Pacifica,] held that . . . the George Carlin routine ‘could have enlarged a child’s vocabulary in an instant,’ we believe that even isolated broadcasts of the ‘F-Word’ in situations such as that here could do so as well”).
c
Even though the incidents at issue in these cases took place before the Golden Globes Order, the Commission applied its new policy regarding fleeting expletives and fleeting nudity. It found the broadcasts by respondents Fox and ABC to be in violation of this standard.
1
As to Fox, the Commission found the two Billboard Awards broadcasts indecent in In re Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts Between February 2, 2002 and March 8, 2005, 21 FCC Rcd. 2664 (2006). Numerous parties petitioned for a review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals granted the Commission’s request for a voluntary remand so that it could respond to the parties’ objections. Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F. 3d 444, 453 (2007). In its remand order, the Commission applied its tripartite definition of patently offensive material from its 2001 order and found that both broadcasts fell well within its scope. See In re Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts Between February 2, 2002 and March 8, 2005, 21 FCC Rcd. 13299 (2006) (Remand Order); see also Fox I, supra, at 511-513 (discussing in detail the Commission’s findings). As pertains to the constitutional issue in these cases, the Commission noted that under the policy clarified in the Golden Globes Order, “categorically requiring repeated use of expletives in order to find material indecent is inconsistent with our general approach to indecency enforcement.” Remand Order, 21 FCC Rcd., at 13308; see also id., at 13325 (“[U]nder our Golden Globe precedent, the fact that Cher used the ‘F-Word’ once does not remove her comment from the realm of actionable indecency”). Though the Commission deemed Fox should have known Nicole Richie’s comments were actionably indecent even prior to the Golden Globes Order, 21 FCC Rcd., at 13307, it declined to propose a forfeiture in light of the limited nature of the Second Circuit’s remand. Id., at 13321. The Commission acknowledged that “it was not apparent that Fox could be penalized for Cher’s comment at the time it was broadcast.” And so, as in the Golden Globes case it imposed no penalty for that broadcast. Id., at 13324, 13326.
Fox and various intervenors returned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, raising administrative, statutory, and constitutional challenges to the Commission’s indecency regulations. See Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F. 3d 444. In a 2-to-1 decision, with Judge Leval dissenting, the Court of Appeals found the Remand Order arbitrary and capricious because “the FCC has made a 180-degree turn regarding its treatment of ‘fleeting expletives’ without providing a reasoned explanation justifying the about-face.” 489 F. 3d, at 455. While noting its skepticism as to whether the Commission’s fleeting expletive regime “would pass constitutional muster,” the Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to address the issue. Id., at 462.
The case came here on certiorari. Citing the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 551 et seq., this Court noted that the Judiciary may set aside agency action that is arbitrary or capricious. In the context of a change in policy (such as the Commission’s determination that fleeting expletives could be indecent), the decision held an agency, in the ordinary course, should acknowledge that it is in fact changing its position and “show that there are good reasons for the new policy.” Fox I, 556 U. S., at 515. There is no need, however, for an agency to provide detailed justifications for every change or to show that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one. Ibid.
Judged under this standard, the Court in Fox I found the Commission’s new indecency enforcement policy neither arbitrary nor capricious. Id., at 517. The Court noted the Commission had acknowledged breaking new ground in ruling that fleeting and nonliteral expletives could be indecent under the controlling standards; the Court concluded the agency’s reasons for expanding the scope of its enforcement activity were rational. Ibid. Not only was it “certainly reasonable to determine that it made no sense to distinguish between literal and nonliteral uses of offensive words,” ibid., but the Court agreed that the Commission’s decision to “look at the patent offensiveness of even isolated uses of sexual and excretory words fits with the context-based approach [approved]... in Pacifica,” ibid. Given that “[e]ven isolated utterances can . . . constitute harmful ‘first blow[s]’ to children,” the Court held that the Commission could “decide it needed to step away from its old regime where nonrepetitive use of an expletive was per se nonactionable.” Id., at 518. Having found the agency’s action to be neither arbitrary nor capricious, the Court remanded for the Court of Appeals to address respondents’ First Amendment challenges. Id., at 529-530.
On remand from Fox I, the Court of Appeals held the Commission’s indecency policy unconstitutionally vague and invalidated it in its entirety. 613 F. 3d, at 327. The Court of Appeals found the policy, as expressed in the 2001 guidance and subsequent Commission decisions, failed to give broadcasters sufficient notice of what would be considered indecent. Surveying a number of Commission adjudications, the court found the Commission was inconsistent as to which words it deemed patently offensive. See id., at 330. It also determined that the Commission’s presumptive prohibition on the F-word and the S-word was plagued by vagueness because the Commission had on occasion found the fleeting use of those words not indecent provided they occurred during a bona fide news interview or were “demonstrably essential to the nature of an artistic or educational work.” Id., at 331 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Commission’s application of these exceptions, according to the Court of Appeals, left broadcasters guessing whether an expletive would be deemed artistically integral to a program or whether a particular broadcast would be considered a bona fide news interview. The Court of Appeals found the vagueness inherent in the policy had forced broadcasters to “choose between not airing . . . controversial programs [or] risking massive fines or possibly even loss of their licenses.” Id., at 334. And the court found that there was “ample evidence in the record” that this harsh choice had led to a chill of protected speech. Ibid.
2
The procedural history regarding ABC is more brief. On February 19, 2008, the Commission issued a forfeiture order finding the display of the woman’s nude buttocks in NYPD Blue was actionably indecent. See In re Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 25, 2003 Broadcast of the Program “NYPD Blue,” 23 FCC Rcd. 3147 (2008). The Commission determined that, regardless of medical definitions, displays of buttocks fell within the category of displays of sexual or excretory organs because the depiction was “widely associated with sexual arousal and closely associated by most people with excretory activities.” Id., at 3150. The scene was deemed patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, ibid.; and the Commission determined that “[t]he female actor’s nudity is presented in a manner that clearly panders to and titillates the audience,” id., at 3153. Unlike in the Fox case, the Commission imposed a forfeiture of $27,500 on each of the 45 ABC-affiliated stations that aired the indecent episode. In a summary order the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the forfeiture order, determining that it was bound by its Fox decision striking down the entirety of the Commission’s indecency policy. See 404 Fed. Appx., at 533.
The Government sought review of both judgments, see Brief for Petitioners 1, and this Court granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1036 (2011). These are the cases before us.
II
A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required. See Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926) (“[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law”); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 162 (1972) (“Living under a rule of law entails various suppositions, one of which is that ‘[all persons] are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids’ ” (quoting Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453 (1939); alteration in original)). This requirement of clarity in regulation is essential to the protections provided by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 304 (2008). It requires the invalidation of laws that are imper-missibly vague. A conviction or punishment fails to comply with due process if the statute or regulation under which it is obtained “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.” Ibid. As this Court has explained, a regulation is not vague because it may at times be difficult to prove an incriminating fact but rather because it is unclear as to what fact must be proved. See id., at 306.
Even when speech is not at issue, the void for vagueness doctrine addresses at least two connected but discrete due process concerns: first, that regulated parties should know what is required of them so they may act accordingly; second, precision and guidance are necessary so that those enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory way. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 108-109 (1972). When speech is involved, rigorous adherence to those requirements is necessary to ensure that ambiguity does not chill protected speech.
These concerns are implicated here because, at the outset, the broadcasters claim they did not have, and do not have, sufficient notice of what is proscribed. And leaving aside any concerns about facial invalidity, they contend that the lengthy procedural history set forth above shows that the broadcasters did not have fair notice of what was forbidden. Under the 2001 guidelines in force when the broadcasts occurred, a key consideration was “‘whether the material dwellfed] on or repeated] at length’ ” the offending description or depiction. 613 F. 3d, at 322. In the 2004 Golden Globes Order, issued after the broadcasts, the Commission changed course and held that fleeting expletives could be a statutory violation. Fox I, 556 U. S., at 512. In the challenged orders now under review the Commission applied the new principle promulgated in the Golden Globes Order and determined fleeting expletives and a brief moment of indecency were actionably indecent. This regulatory history, however, makes it apparent that the Commission policy in place at the time of the broadcasts gave no notice to Fox or ABC that a fleeting expletive or a brief shot of nudity could be actionably indecent; yet Fox and ABC were found to be in violation. The Commission’s lack of notice to Fox and ABC that its interpretation had changed so the fleeting moments of indecency contained in their broadcasts were a violation of § 1464 as interpreted and enforced by the agency “fail[ed] to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited.” Williams, supra, at 304. This would be true with respect to a regulatory change this abrupt on any subject, but it is surely the case when applied to the regulations in question, regulations that touch upon “sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms,” Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 372 (1964); see also Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 871-872 (1997) (“The vagueness of [a content-based regulation of speech] raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect”).
The Government raises two arguments in response, but neither is persuasive. As for the two fleeting expletives, the Government concedes that “Fox did not have reasonable notice at the time of the broadcasts that the Commission would consider non-repeated expletives indecent.” Brief for Petitioners 28, n. 3. The Government argues, nonetheless, that Fox “cannot establish unconstitutional vagueness on that basis .. . because the Commission did not impose a sanction where Fox lacked such notice.” Ibid. As the Court observed when the case was here three Terms ago, it is true that the Commission declined to impose any forfeiture on Fox, see 556 U. S., at 513, and in its order the Commission claimed that it would not consider the indecent broadcasts either when considering whether to renew stations’ licenses or “in any other context,” 21 FCC Rcd., at 13321, 13326. This “policy of forbearance,” as the Government calls it, does not suffice to make the issue moot. Brief for Petitioners 31. Though the Commission claims it will not consider the prior indecent broadcasts “in any context,” it has the statutory power to take into account “any history of prior offenses” when setting the level of a forfeiture penalty. See 47 U. S. C. § 503(b)(2)(E). Just as in the First Amendment context, the due process protection against vague regulations “does not leave [regulated parties] ... at the mercy of noblesse oblige.” United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 480 (2010). Given that the Commission found it was “not inequitable to hold Fox responsible for [the 2003 broadcast],” 21 FCC Rcd., at 13314, and that it has the statutory authority to use its finding to increase any future penalties, the Government’s assurance it will elect not to do so is insufficient to remedy the constitutional violation.
In addition, when combined with the legal consequence described above, reputational injury provides further reason for granting relief to Fox. Cf. Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 708-709 (1976) (explaining that an “alteration of legal status ... combined with the injury resulting from the defamation” justifies the invocation of procedural safeguards). As respondent CBS points out, findings of wrongdoing can result in harm to a broadcaster’s “reputation with viewers and advertisers.” Brief for Respondent CBS Television Network Affiliates Assn, et al. 17. This observation is hardly surprising given that the challenged orders, which are contained in the permanent Commission record, describe in strongly disapproving terms the indecent material broadcast by Fox, see, e. g., 21 FCC Rcd., at 13310-13311, ¶ 30 (noting the “explicit, graphic, vulgar, and shocking nature of Ms. Richie’s comments”), and Fox’s efforts to protect children from being exposed to it, see id., at 13311, ¶ 33 (finding Fox had failed to exercise “ ‘reasonable judgment, responsibility and sensitivity to the public’s needs and tastes to avoid [a] patently offensive broadcas[t]’”). Commission sanctions on broadcasters for indecent material are widely publicized. See, e. g., F. C. C. Fines Fox, N. Y. Times, Feb. 26, 2008, p. E2; FCC Plans Record Fine for CBS, Washington Post, Sept. 24, 2004, p. E1. The challenged orders could have an adverse impact on Fox’s reputation that audiences and advertisers alike are entitled to take into account.
With respect to ABC, the Government with good reason does not argue no sanction was imposed. The fine against ABC and its network affiliates for the seven seconds of nudity was nearly $1.24 million. See Brief for Respondent ABC, Inc., et al. 7 (hereinafter ABC Brief). The Government argues instead that ABC had notice that the scene in NYPD Blue would be considered indecent in light of a 1960 decision where the Commission declared that the “televising of nudes might well raise a serious question of programming contrary to 18 U. S. C. 1464.” Brief for Petitioners 32 (quoting Enbanc Programing Inquiry, 44 FCC 2303, 2307; internal quotation marks omitted). This argument does not prevail. An isolated and ambiguous statement from a 1960 Commission decision does not suffice for the fair notice required when the Government intends to impose over a $1 million fine for allegedly impermissible speech. The Commission, furthermore, had released decisions before sanctioning ABC that declined to find isolated and brief moments of nudity actionably indecent. See, e. g., In re Application of WGBH, 69 F. C. C. 2d, at 1251, 1255 (declining to find broadcasts containing nudity to be indecent and emphasizing the difference between repeated and isolated expletives); In re WPBN/WTOM License Subsidiary, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd. 1838, 1840 (2000) (finding full frontal nudity in Schindler’s List not indecent). This is not to say, of course, that a graphic scene from Schindler’s List involving nude concentration camp prisoners is the same as the shower scene from NYPD Blue. It does show, however, that the Government can point to nothing that would have given ABC affirmative notice that its broadcast would be considered actionably indecent. It is likewise not sufficient for the Commission to assert, as it did in its order, that though “the depiction [of nudity] here is not as lengthy or repeated” as in some cases, the shower scene nonetheless “does contain more shots or lengthier pictions of nudity” than in other broadcasts found not indecent. 23 FCC Rcd., at 3153. This broad language fails to demonstrate that ABC had fair notice that its broadcast could be found indecent. In fact, a Commission ruling prior to the airing of the NYPD Blue episode had deemed 30 seconds of nude buttocks “very brief” and not actionably indecent in the context of the broadcast. See Letter from Norman Goldstein to David Molina, FCC File No. 97110028 (May 26, 1999), in App. to Brief for Respondent ABC Television Affiliates Assn, et al. la; see also Letter from Edythe Wise to Susan Cavin, FCC File No. 91100738 (Aug. 13, 1992), id., at 18a, 19a. In light of this record of agency decisions, and the absence of any notice in the 2001 guidance that seven seconds of nude buttocks would be found indecent, ABC lacked constitutionally sufficient notice prior to being sanctioned.
The Commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent. Therefore, the Commission’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague, and the Commission’s orders must be set aside.
h—( I I—I
It is necessary to make three observations about the scope of this decision. First, because the Court resolves these cases on fair notice grounds under the Due Process Clause, it need not address the First Amendment implications of the Commission’s indecency policy. It is argued that this Court’s ruling in Pacifica (and the less rigorous standard of scrutiny it provided for the regulation of broadcasters, see 438 U. S. 726) should be overruled because the rationale of that case has been overtaken by technological change and the wide availability of multiple other choices for listeners and viewers. See, e. g., ABC Brief 48-57; Brief for Respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al. 15-26. The Government for its part maintains that when it licenses a conventional broadcast spectrum, the public may assume that the Government has its own interest in setting certain standards. See Brief for Petitioners 40-53. These arguments need not be addressed here. In light of the Court’s holding that the Commission’s policy failed to provide fair notice it is unnecessary to reconsider Pacifica at this time.
This leads to a second observation. Here, the Court rules that Fox and ABC lacked notice at the time of their broadcasts that the material they were broadcasting could be found actionably indecent under then-existing policies. Given this disposition, it is unnecessary for the Court to address the constitutionality of the current indecency policy as expressed in the Golden Globes Order and subsequent adjudications. The Court adheres to its normal practice of declining to decide cases not before it. See, e. g., Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 631 (1950) (“Broader issues have been urged for our consideration, but we adhere to the principle of deciding constitutional questions only in the context of the particular case before the Court”).
Third, this opinion leaves the Commission free to modify its current indecency policy in light of its determination of the public interest and applicable legal requirements. And it leaves the courts free to review the current policy or any modified policy in light of its content and application.
* * *
The judgments of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with the principles set forth in this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit by respondent Hazeltine Research, Inc., as assignee of the licensor’s interest in a nonexclusive patent license agreement covering a group of 570 patents and 200 applications, against petitioner Automatic Radio Manufacturing Company, Inc., the licensee, to recover royalties. The patents and applications are related to the manufacture of radio broadcasting apparatus. Respondent and its corporate affiliate and predecessor have for some twenty years been engaged in research, development, engineering design and testing and consulting services in the radio field. Respondent derives income from the licensing of its patents, its policy being to license any and all responsible manufacturers of radio apparatus at a royalty rate which for many years has been approximately one percent. Petitioner manufactures radio apparatus, particularly radio broadcasting receivers.
The license agreement in issue, which appears to be a standard Hazeltine license, was entered into by the parties in September 1942, for a term of ten years. By its terms petitioner acquired permission to use, in the manufacture of its “home” products, any or all of the patents which respondent held or to which it might acquire rights. Petitioner was not, however, obligated to use respondent’s patents in the manufacture of its products. For this license, petitioner agreed to pay respondent’s assignor royalties based upon a small percentage of petitioner’s selling price of complete radio broadcasting receivers, and in any event a minimum of $10,000 per year. It further agreed to keep a record of its sales and to make monthly reports thereof.
This suit was brought to recover the minimum royalty due for the year ending August 31, 1946, for an accounting of other sums due, and for other relief. Petitioner answered and both parties filed motions for summary judgment and affidavits in support of the motions. The District Court found the case to be one appropriate for summary procedure under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and sustained the motion of respondent for judgment. The validity of the license agreement was upheld against various charges of misuse of the patents, and judgment was entered for the recovery of royalties and an accounting, and for a permanent injunction restraining petitioner from failing to pay royalties, to keep records, and to render reports during the life of the agreement. 77 F. Supp. 493. The Court of Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting (176 F. 2d 799), and we granted certiorari (338 U. S. 942) in order to consider important questions concerning patent misuse and estoppel to challenge the validity of licensed patents.
The questions for determination are whether a misuse of patents has been shown, and whether petitioner may contest the validity of the licensed patents, in order to avoid its obligation to pay royalties under the agreement.
First. It is insisted that the license agreement cannot be enforced because it is a misuse of patents to require the licensee to pay royalties based on its sales, even though none of the patents are used. Petitioner directs our attention to the “Tie-in” cases. These cases have condemned schemes requiring the purchase of unpatented goods for use with patented apparatus or processes, prohibiting production or sale of competing goods, and conditioning the granting of a license under one patent upon the acceptance of another and different license. Petitioner apparently concedes that these cases do not, on their facts, control the instant situation. It is obvious that they do not. There is present here no requirement for the purchase of any goods. Hazeltine does not even manufacture or sell goods; it is engaged solely in research activities. Nor is there any prohibition as to the licensee’s manufacture or sale of any type of apparatus. The fact that the license agreement covers only “home” apparatus does not mean that the licensee is prohibited from manufacturing or selling other apparatus. And finally, there is no conditioning of the license grant upon the acceptance of another and different license. We are aware that petitioner asserted in its countermotion for summary judgment in the District Court that Hazeltine refused to grant a license under any one or more of its patents to anyone who refused to take a license under all. This averment was elaborated in the affidavit of petitioner’s attorney in support of the motion. The point was not pressed in the Court of Appeals or here. In any event there is nothing available in the record to support the averment, since the affidavit in support thereof was made upon information and belief and the relevant portion, at least, does not comply with Rule 56 (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
But petitioner urges that this case “is identical in principle” with the “Tie-in” cases. It is contended that the licensing provision requiring royalty payments of a percentage of the sales of the licensee’s products constitutes a misuse of patents because it ties in a payment on unpatented goods. Particular reliance is placed on language from United States v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 389, 400. That case was a prosecution under the Sherman Act for an alleged conspiracy of Gypsum and its licensees to extend the monopoly of certain patents and to eliminate competition by fixing prices on patented and unpatented gypsum board. The license provisions based royalties on all sales of gypsum board, both patented and unpatented. It was held that the license provisions, together with evidence of an understanding that only patented board would be sold, showed a conspiracy to restrict the production of unpatented products which was an invalid extension of the area of the patent monopoly. 333 U. S. at 397. There is no indication here of conspiracy to restrict production of unpatented or any goods to effectuate a monopoly, and thus the Gypsum case does not aid petitioner. That which is condemned as against public policy by the “Tie-in” cases is the extension of the monopoly of the patent to create another monopoly or restraint of competition — a restraint not countenanced by the patent grant. See, e. g., Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661, 665-666; Morton Salt Co. v. Suppiger Co., 314 U. S. 488; Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U. S. 436, 456. The principle of those cases cannot be contorted to circumscribe the instant situation. This royalty provision does not create another monopoly; it creates no restraint of competition beyond the legitimate grant of the patent. The right to a patent includes the right to market the use of the patent at a reasonable return. See 46 Stat. 376, 35 U. S. C. § 40; Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U. S. 386, 417, 324 U. S. 570, 574.
The licensing agreement in issue was characterized by the District Court as essentially a grant by Hazeltine to petitioner of a privilege to use any patent or future development of Hazeltine in consideration of the payment of royalties. Payment for the privilege is required regardless of use of the patents. The royalty provision of the licensing agreement was sustained by the District Court and the Court of Appeals on the theory that it was a convenient mode of operation designed by the parties to avoid the necessity of determining whether each type of petitioner’s product embodies any of the numerous Hazeltine patents. 77 F. Supp. at 496. The Court of Appeals reasoned that since it would not be unlawful to agree to pay a fixed sum for the privilege to use patents, it was not unlawful to provide a variable consideration measured by a percentage of the licensee’s sales for the same privilege. 176 F. 2d at 804. Numerous District Courts which have had occasion to pass on the question have reached the same result on similar grounds, and we are of like opinion.
The mere accumulation of patents, no matter how many, is not in and of itself illegal. See Transparent-Wrap Machine Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co., 329 U. S. 637. And this record simply does not support incendiary, yet vague, charges that respondent uses its accumulation of patents “for the exaction of tribute” and collects royalties “by means of the overpowering threat of disastrous litigation.” We cannot say that payment of royalties according to an agreed percentage of the licensee’s sales is unreasonable. Sound business judgment could indicate that such payment represents the most convenient method of fixing the business value of the privileges granted by the licensing agreement. We are not unmindful that convenience cannot justify an extension of the monopoly of the patent. See, e. g., Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661, 666; B. B. Chemical Co. v. Ellis, 314 U. S. 495, 498. But as we have already indicated, there is in this royalty provision no inherent extension of the monopoly of the patent. Petitioner cannot complain because it must pay royalties whether it uses Hazeltine patents or not. What it acquired by the agreement into which it entered was the privilege to use any or all of the patents and developments as it desired to use them. If it chooses to use none of them, it has nevertheless contracted to pay for the privilege of using existing patents plus any developments resulting from respondent’s continuous research. We hold that in licensing the use of patents to one engaged in a related enterprise, it is not per se a misuse of patents to measure the consideration by a percentage of the licensee’s sales.
Second. It is next contended by petitioner that the license agreement is unenforceable because it contained a provision requiring the following restrictive notice to be attached to apparatus manufactured by petitioner under the agreement:
“ ‘Licensed by Hazeltine Corporation only for use in homes, for educational purposes, and for private, non-commercial use, under one or more of the following patents and under pending applications:’ followed by the word ‘Patent’ and the numbers of the patents which are, in the opinion of Licensor, involved in apparatus of the types licensed hereunder manufactured by one or more licensees of Licensor.”
Respondent did not seek to have this provision of the agreement enforced, and the decree of the District Court does not enforce it. It may well have been a dead letter from the beginning, as indicated by the fact that, as petitioner averred in its answer, it has never observed this provision of the agreement. Thus it is doubtful that the legality of this provision could be contested, even assuming that the issue was properly raised, which respondent disputes. In any event, it is clear that any issue with respect to this provision of the agreement is moot. An affidavit of the president of respondent corporation advises us of certain letters which were sent by respondent in September 1945, to each of its licensees, including petitioner. These letters authorized the discontinuance of the restrictive notice provision and the substitution of the marking
“This apparatus is licensed under the United States patent rights of Hazeltine Corporation.”
It is further averred that this form of notice is all that respondent has required of its licensees since September 1945. Since this provision of the agreement was made for the benefit of respondent, it could voluntarily waive the provision. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Bulldog Electric Products Co., 179 F. 2d 139, 145, 146. Thus the question of the legality of the original restrictive notice provision is not before us. Cf. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 163, 181-182.
Third. Finally, it is contended that notwithstanding the licensing agreement, petitioner-licensee may contest the validity of the patents it is charged with using. The general rule is that the licensee under a patent license agreement may not challenge the validity of the licensed patent in a suit for royalties due under the contract. United States v. Harvey Steel Co., 196 U. S. 310. The general principle of the invalidity of price-fixing agreements may be invoked by the licensee of what purport to be valid patents to show in a suit for royalties that the patents are invalid. Katzinger Co. v. Chicago Metallic Mfg. Co., 329 U. S. 394; MacGregor v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 329 U. S. 402. There is no showing that the licensing agreement here or the practices under it were a misuse of patents or contrary to public policy. This limited license for “home” use production contains neither an express nor implied agreement to refrain from production for “commercial” or any other use as part consideration for the license grant. The Katzinger and MacGregor cases are inapplicable. The general rule applies, and petitioner may not, in this suit, challenge the validity of the licensed patents.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Douglas,
with whom
Mr. Justice Black concurs, dissenting.
We are, I think, inclined to forget that the power of Congress to grant patents is circumscribed by the Constitution. The patent power, of all legislative powers, is indeed the only one whose purpose is defined. Article I, § 8 describes the power as one “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” This statement of policy limits the power itself.
The Court in its long history has at times been more alive to that policy than at other times. During the last three decades it has been as devoted to it (if not more so) than at any time in its history. I think that was due in large measure to the influence of Mr. Justice Brandéis and Chief Justice Stone. They were alert to the danger that business — growing bigger and bigger each decade— would fasten its hold more tightly on the economy through the cheap spawning of patents and would use one monopoly to beget another through the leverage of key patents. They followed in the early tradition of those who read the Constitution to mean that the public interest in patents comes first, reward to the inventor second.
First. Mr. Justice Brandéis and Chief Justice Stone did not fashion but they made more secure one important rule designed to curb the use of patents. It is as follows : One who holds a patent on article A may not license the use of the patent on condition that B, an unpatented article, be bought. Such a contract or agreement would be an extension of the grant of the patent contrary to a long line of decisions. See Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U. S. 502; Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Corp., 283 U. S. 27; Morton Salt Co. v. Suppiger Co., 314 U. S. 488, 491-92; United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U. S. 265, 277, 278; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661, 666; United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 389. For it would sweep under the patent an article that is unpatented or unpatentable. Each patent owner would become his own patent office and, by reason of the leverage of the patent, obtain a larger monopoly of the market than the Constitution or statutes permit.
That is what is done here. Hazeltine licensed Automatic Radio to use 570 patents and 200 patent applications. Of these Automatic used at most 10. Automatic Radio was obligated, however, to pay as royalty a percentage of its total sales in certain lines without regard to whether or not the products sold were patented or unpatented. The inevitable result is that the patentee received royalties on unpatented products as part of the price for the use of the patents.
The patent owner has therefore used the patents to bludgeon his way into a partnership with this licensee, collecting royalties on unpatented as well as patented articles.
A plainer extension of a patent by unlawful means would be hard to imagine.
Second. Chief Justice Stone wrote for the Court in Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 317 U. S. 173, holding that a licensee is not estopped to challenge a price-fixing clause by showing the patent is invalid. And see Katzinger Co. v. Chicago Mfg. Co., 329 U. S. 394; MacGregor v. Westinghouse Co., 329 U. S. 402. He also wrote for the Court in Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Co., 326 U. S. 249, holding that estoppel did not bar the assignor of a patent from defending a suit for infringement of the assigned patent on the ground that the alleged infringing device was that of a prior-art expired patent.
These decisions put the protection of the public interest in free enterprise above reward to the patentee. The limitations which they made on the estoppel doctrine represented an almost complete cycle back to the salutary teaching of Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully, 144 U. S. 224, 234, that, “It is as important to the public that competition should not be repressed by worthless patents, as that the patentee of a really valuable invention should be protected in his monopoly.” To estop the licensee from attacking the validity of patents is to forget that “It is the public interest which is dominant in the patent system.” Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., supra, at 665.
It is said that if the purpose was to enlarge the monopoly of the patent — for example, through price fixing-then estoppel would not bar the licensee from challenging the validity of the patents. But what worse enlargement of monopoly is there than the attachment of a patent to an unpatentable article? When we consider the constitutional standard, what greater public harm than that is there in the patent system?
It is only right and just that the licensee be allowed to challenge the validity of the patents. A great pooling of patents is made; and whole industries are knit together in the fashion of the unholy alliances revealed in United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U. S. 287, and United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364. One who wants the use of one patent may have to take hundreds. The whole package may contain many patents that have been foisted on the public. No other person than the licensee will be interested enough to challenge them. He alone will be apt to see and understand the basis of their illegality.
The licensee protects the public interest in exposing invalid or expired patents and freeing the public of their toll. He should be allowed that privilege. He would be allowed it were the public interest considered the dominant one. Ridding the public of stale or specious patents is one way of serving the end of the progress of science.
We depart from a great tradition in this field (and see Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U. S. 605) when we affirm this judgment.
International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392; Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honey well Co., 320 U. S. 680; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661; B. B. Chemical Co. v. Ellis, 314 U. S. 495; Morton Salt Co. v. Suppiger Co., 314 U. S. 488; Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U. S. 436; Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co., 302 U. S. 458; International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U. S. 131; Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Development Corp., 283 U. S. 27; United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States, 258 U. S. 451; Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co., 243 U. S. 502.
United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States, 258 U. S. 451; National Lockwasher Co. v. Garrett Co., 137 F. 2d 255; Radio Corp. v. Lord, 28 F. 2d 257.
United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U. S. 131. (Copyright “block-booking.”)
“Form of Affidavits; Further Testimony. Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. . . .” Fed. Rules Civ. Proe., 56 (e).
“. . . the royalty was to be measured by a percentage of the value of all gypsum products, patented or unpatented . . . .” 333 U. S. at 389. “Patents grant no privilege to their owners of organizing the use of those patents to monopolize an industry through price control, through royalties for the patents drawn from patent-free industry products and through regulation of distribution.” 333 U. S. at 400.
In this view of the contract we need not concern ourselves with the controversy between counsel as to whether the transcript shows a factual dispute over the use or non-use of Hazeltine patents by petitioner in its products.
Hazeltine Research v. Admiral Corp., 87 F. Supp. 72, 79; H-P-M Development Corp. v. Watson-Stillman Co., 71 F. Supp. 906, 912; American Optical Co. v. New Jersey Optical Co., 58 F. Supp. 601, 606; Ohio Citizens Trust Co. v. Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp., 56 F. Supp. 1010, 1012; Cf. Pyrene Mfg. Co. v. Urquhart, 69 F. Supp. 555, 560; International Carbonic Engineering Co. v. Natural Car bonic Products, 57 F. Supp. 248, 251-253, affirmed, 158 F. 2d 285. At least one state court has reached this result. Hazeltine Research v. De Wald Radio Corp., 84 N. Y. S. 2d 597, 603.
See Mr. Justice Story in Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1; Mr. Justice Daniel in Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 322; Mr. Justice Campbell in Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330, 344 (dissenting opinion).
See Hamilton, Patents and Free Enterprise, T. N. E. C. Monograph No. 31, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 62-70.
Mr. Justice Brandéis speaking for the Court in Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Corp., supra, p. 32, said, “If a monopoly could be so expanded, the owner of a patent for a product might conceivably monopolize the commerce in a large part of unpatented materials used in its manufacture. The owner of a patent for a machine might thereby secure a partial monopoly on the unpatented supplies consumed in its operation. The owner of a patent for a process might secure a partial monopoly on the unpatented material employed in it. The owner of the patent in suit might conceivably secure a limited monopoly for the supplying not only of solid carbon dioxide, but also of the ice cream and other foods, as well as of the cartons in which they are shipped. The attempt to limit the licensee to the use of unpatented materials purchased from the licensor is comparable to the attempt of a patentee to fix the price at which the patented article may be resold.”
In this case Chief Justice Stone emphasized the public interest at stake in allowing the challenge to the patent (326 U. S. p. 256): “By the force of the patent laws not only is the invention of a patent dedicated to the public upon its expiration, but the public thereby becomes entitled to share in the good will which the patentee has built up in the patented article or product through the enjoyment of his patent monopoly.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel was violated by the admission at trial of incriminating statements made by him to his codefendant, a secret government informant, after indictment and at a meeting of the two to plan defense strategy for the upcoming trial.
I
On the night of January 15, 1981, police officers in Belfast, Maine, responded to a fire call in the vicinity of the Belfast Dodge automobile dealership. Arriving at the scene, the officers discovered a burning Chevrolet dump truck which they recognized as a vehicle that had been reported stolen. After examining the burning truck, the officers searched a building located on the Belfast Dodge property. This building was not part of the dealership, but was leased to respondent Perley Moulton and his codefendant Gary Colson who were using the space to restore and sell old Ford Mustangs. Inside, the officers discovered evidence of several recent automobile and automobile-related thefts.
On April 7, 1981, a Waldo County grand jury returned indictments charging Moulton and Colson with four counts of theft by receiving in violation of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, § 359 (1983). Specifically, the indictments alleged that Moulton and Colson received, retained, or disposed of a 1978 Ford pickup truck, a 1978 Chevrolet dump truck, a 1970 Ford Mustang automobile, and assorted Ford Motor Company automotive parts knowing these to be stolen and intending to deprive the owners of possession. On April 9, Moulton and Colson, represented by retained counsel, appeared before the Maine Superior Court for Waldo County and entered pleas of not guilty. Both were enlarged on bail pending trial. Numerous proceedings, unnecessary to detail here, occurred during the ensuing year and a half.
On November 4, 1982, Colson complained by telephone to Robert Keating, Chief of the Belfast Police Department, that he had received anonymous threatening telephone calls regarding the charges pending against him and Moulton, and indicated that he wished to talk to the police about the charges. Keating told Colson to speak with his lawyer and to call back.
On November 6, Colson met with Moulton at a Belfast restaurant to plan for their upcoming trial. According to Colson, Moulton suggested the possibility of killing Gary Elwell, a State’s witness, and they discussed how to commit the murder.
On November 9 and 10, Colson, accompanied by his lawyer, met with Police Chief Keating and State Police Detective Rexford Kelley. At these meetings, Colson gave full confessions of his participation with Moulton in committing the crimes for which they had been indicted. In addition, Colson admitted that he and Moulton had not merely received stolen automotive parts, but also had broken into the local Ford dealership to steal the parts. Colson also stated that he and Moulton had set fire to the dump truck and had committed other thefts. The officers offered Colson a deal: no further charges would be brought against him if he would testify against Moulton and otherwise cooperate in the prosecution of Moulton on the pending charges. Colson agreed to cooperate.
Colson also discussed with Keating and Kelley the anonymous threats he had received and Moulton’s inchoate plan to kill Gary Elwell. Keating requested, and Colson consented, to have a recording device placed on Colson’s telephone. Colson was instructed to turn the recording device on whenever he received a telephone call, but to turn it off immediately unless it was a threat from the anonymous caller or a call from Moulton.
The recording device was on Colson’s telephone for over a month. Although he received no threats, Colson spoke to Moulton three times during this period, and the tapes of these calls were turned over to the police. The first conversation, on November 22, concerned primarily personal matters. The only reference to the pending criminal charges was Colson’s question whether Moulton had “heard anything from the lawyer,” and Moulton’s response that he had not, but that he had “come up with a method” that he “ha[d] to work out the details on,” and that “[s]ome day [he’d] like to get together and talk to [Colson] about it.” Moulton, then living in New Hampshire, said that he was planning to visit Belfast around Christmas.
The second telephone conversation, on December 2, was prompted by Moulton’s receipt of copies of statements of three of the State’s witnesses, including Elwell; Colson had not yet received copies of the statements. Most of their talk (on Moulton’s side particularly) was about the statements of Elwell and Elwell’s brother, which accused Moulton and Colson of being guilty of the pending charges and which Moulton complained were an attempt to frame him and Colson. After reading Colson a statement by Elwell that he had received a threatening phone call, Moulton commented “[t]his is a big joke, man.” When Colson jokingly suggested that they flee to Acapulco, Moulton vehemently rejected the suggestion, stating: “No, I’m gonna stay here and I’m gonna fight it man. I’m gonna fight it man. I ain’t gonna get framed for nothing.” Colson assented to this and suggested, “we’ll have to get together sometime....” Moulton reminded Colson that he would be visiting at Christmas, and the conversation ended without Moulton having said anything that incriminated him.
The third telephone conversation, which took place on December 14, was similar to the second one. Most of the conversation concerned the pending charges, but Moulton said nothing inculpatory and continued to insist that he and Colson were being framed. Moulton asked Colson to set aside an entire day so that the two of them could meet and plan their defense. They agreed to meet on Sunday, December 26.
After learning from the telephone recordings about the meeting planned for December 26, the police obtained Colson’s consent to be equipped with a body wire transmitter to record what was said at the meeting. Chief Keating later testified that he did this for Colson’s safety in case Moulton realized that Colson was cooperating with the police, and to record any further conversation concerning threats to witnesses. Keating also testified that he was aware that Moulton and Colson were meeting to discuss the charges for which Moulton was already under indictment. Colson was instructed “not to attempt to question Perley Moulton, just be himself in his conversation....”
The December 26 meeting, as was to be expected from the recorded telephone conversations, consisted of a prolonged discussion of the pending charges — what actually had occurred, what the State’s evidence would show, and what Moulton and Colson should do to obtain a verdict of acquittal. The idea of eliminating witnesses was briefly mentioned early in the conversation. After a short discussion, encouraged by Colson, Moulton concluded that he did not think the plan would work. The remainder of the lengthy meeting was spent discussing the case. Moulton and Colson decided to create false alibis as their defense at trial. Because they sought to conform these alibis as closely as possible to what really happened, much of their discussion involved recounting the crimes. Although Colson had described what had happened in detail when he confessed to the police a month earlier, he now frequently professed to be unable to recall the events. Apologizing for his poor memory, he repeatedly asked Moulton to remind him about the details of what had happened, and this technique caused Moulton to make numerous incriminating statements. Nor were all of Colson’s memory lapses related to events that required discussion to fabricate convincing alibis. Colson also “reminisced” about events surrounding the various thefts, and this technique too elicited additional incriminating statements from Moulton. For example, Colson asked Moulton how many locks they had drilled to steal a truck, a fact obviously not relevant to developing an alibi. Similarly, Colson questioned Moulton about whether it was the Mustang or the pickup truck that did not have a heater. Later, Colson jokingly drew forth admissions from Moulton concerning the dumping of a stolen truck into a pond after it had been scavenged for parts, and the dumping of a load of potatoes from another stolen truck onto the road. Each of these statements was later admitted into evidence against Moulton at trial.
Moulton filed a pretrial motion to suppress recorded statements he made to Colson in the three telephone conversations and at the December 26 meeting, arguing, inter alia, that the statements were obtained in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The trial court found that the recordings were made “in order to gather information concerning the anonymous threats that Mr. Colson had been receiving, to protect Mr. Colson and to gather information concerning defendant Moulton’s plans to kill Gary Elwell.”
Meanwhile, after Colson’s role as an informant had been revealed to Moulton, the State had the pending indictments dismissed and obtained seven new indictments against Moul-ton. These indictments realleged the pending charges, and charged Moulton in addition with burglary, arson, and three more thefts. Moulton pleaded guilty to the charges contained in two of these indictments, and the trial court dismissed two more for improper venue. Moulton waived his right to a jury and proceeded to trial on the remaining three indictments, which covered the subjects of the original indictments and charged him with burglary, arson, and theft. At the trial, the State did not offer into evidence anything from the recorded telephone conversations, but did offer portions of the tapes of the December 26 meeting, principally those involving direct discussion of the thefts for which Moulton was originally indicted. The State did not offer the portion of the meeting during which Moulton and Colson discussed the possibility of killing witnesses and offered only one portion of the discussion about developing false testimony. At the conclusion of the trial, the court dismissed one more count of theft for improper venue and found Moulton not guilty of the arson charge. The court found Moulton guilty, however, of burglary and theft in connection with the Ford pickup truck, the Chevrolet dump truck, and the Ford automotive parts.
Moulton appealed these convictions on the ground that the admission into evidence of his statements to Colson violated his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. The State filed a cross-appeal objecting to the dismissal of charges for improper venue. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine granted both appeals and remanded for a new trial. 481 A. 2d 155 (1984). Regarding the admission of Moulton’s recorded statements to Colson, the court agreed that there was “ample evidence” to support the trial court’s finding that the police wired Colson for legitimate purposes, but held that “[r]eference to the State’s legitimate motive may be relevant to, but cannot wholly refute, the alleged infringement of Moulton’s right to counsel.” Id., at 160. The court held that the State cannot use against Moulton at trial recordings of conversations where the State “knew, or should have known” that Moulton would make incriminating statements regarding crimes as to which charges were already pending. Pointing to Moulton’s close relationship with Colson, the fact that the purpose of their meeting was to discuss the pending charges, and the fact that at the time of the meeting Colson was “fully cooperating with the police and no longer stood in the same adversarial position as did Moulton,” the court held:
“When the police recommended the use of the body wire to Colson they intentionally created a situation that they knew, or should have known, was likely to result in Moulton’s making incriminating statements during his meeting with Colson. The police’s valid purpose in investigating threats against witnesses does not immunize the recordings of Moulton’s incriminating statements from constitutional attack. Those statements may be admissible in the investigation or prosecution of charges for which, at the time the recordings were made, adversary proceedings had not yet commenced. But as to the charges for which Moulton’s right to counsel had already attached, his incriminating statements should have been ruled inadmissible at trial, given the circumstances in which they were acquired.” Id., at 161.
We granted the State’s petition for certiorari. 469 U. S. 1206. We affirm.
II
A
The right to the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments is indispensable to the fair administration of our adversarial system of criminal justice. Embodying “a realistic recognition of the obvious truth that the average defendant does not have the professional legal skill to protect himself,” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 462-463 (1938), the right to counsel safeguards the other rights deemed essential for the fair prosecution of a criminal proceeding. Justice Sutherland’s oft-quoted explanation in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932), bears repetition here:
“The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every stage of the proceedings against him.” Id., at 68-69 (quoted in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 344-345 (1963)).
As indicated in the last sentence of this paragraph, the Court has also recognized that the assistance of counsel cannot be limited to participation in a trial; to deprive a person of counsel during the period prior to trial may be more damaging than denial of counsel during the trial itself. Recognizing that the right to the assistance of counsel is shaped by the need for the assistance of counsel, we have found that the right attaches at earlier, “critical” stages in the criminal justice process “where the results might well settle the accused’s fate and reduce the trial itself to a mere formality.” United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 224 (1967) (quoted in United States v. Gouveia, 467 U. S. 180, 189 (1984)). See, e. g., Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1 (1970); Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52 (1961); White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59 (1963); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U. S. 682 (1972). And, “[wjhatever else it may mean, the right to counsel granted by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments means at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him....” Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 398 (1977). This is because, after the initiation of adversary criminal proceedings, “‘the government has committed itself to prosecute, and... the adverse positions of government and defendant have solidified. It is then that a defendant finds himself faced with the pros-ecutorial forces of organized society, and immersed in the intricacies of substantive and procedural criminal law.’” Gouveia, supra, at 189 (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, supra, at 689).
B
Once the right to counsel has attached and been asserted, the State must of course honor it. This means more than simply that the State cannot prevent the accused from obtaining the assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment also imposes on the State an affirmative obligation to respect and preserve the accused’s choice to seek this assistance. We have on several occasions been called upon to clarify the scope of the State’s obligation in this regard, and have made clear that, at the very least, the prosecutor and police have an affirmative obligation not to act in a manner that circumvents and thereby dilutes the protection afforded by the right to counsel.
In Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315 (1959), the defendant, who had already been indicted, was coercively interrogated by police until the early hours of the morning despite his repeated requests to see his lawyer. A unanimous Court reversed his conviction on the ground that the confession obtained by this interrogation was involuntary and therefore should not have been admitted into evidence at trial. Four Justices, in two concurring opinions, stated that they would also have reached this result on the ground that Spano’s Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel was violated. These Justices reasoned that to permit police to “produce the vital evidence in the form of a confession which is useful or necessary to obtain a conviction” in the absence of counsel, after the right to counsel has attached, is to deny the accused “effective representation by counsel at the only stage when legal aid and advice would help him.” Id., at 325-326 (Douglas, J., concurring, joined by Black and Brennan, JJ.); see also, id., at 326-327 (Stewart, J., concurring, joined by Douglas and Brennan, JJ.). As Justice Douglas succinctly put the point, “what use is a defendant’s right to effective counsel at every stage of a criminal case if, while he is held awaiting trial, he can be questioned in the absence of counsel until he confesses?” Id., at 326.
The position of the concurring Justices in Spano was adopted by the Court in Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964). Massiah was indicted, along with a man named Colson, for conspiracy to possess and to distribute cocaine. Massiah retained a lawyer, pleaded not guilty and was released on bail. Colson, meanwhile, decided to cooperate with Government agents in their continuing investigation of the narcotics activity in which Massiah and others were thought to be engaged. Colson permitted a Government agent to install a radio transmitter under the front seat of his automobile. Massiah held a lengthy conversation with Colson in this automobile while a Government agent listened over the radio. Massiah made several incriminating statements, and these were brought before the jury through the testimony of the Government agent. We reversed Massiah’s conviction on the ground that the incriminating statements were obtained in violation of Massiah’s rights under the Sixth Amendment. The Court stressed the fact that the interview took place after indictment, at a time when Massiah was clearly entitled to the assistance of counsel. Relying on Justice Douglas’ Spano concurrence, the Court concluded that the need for, and consequently the right to, the assistance of counsel applied equally in this extrajudicial setting as at the trial itself. 877 U. S., at 204. Consequently, the Court held:
“[Massiah] was denied the basic protections of [the right to the assistance of counsel] when there was used against him at 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.” Id., at 206.
We applied this principle most recently in United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264 (1980). Henry was arrested and indicted for bank robbery. Counsel was appointed, and Henry was held in jail pending trial. Nichols, an inmate at the same jail and a paid informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, told a Government agent that he was housed in the same cellblock as several federal prisoners, including Henry. The agent told Nichols to pay attention to statements made by these prisoners, but expressly instructed Nichols not to initiate any conversations and not to question Henry regarding the bank robbery. Nichols and Henry subsequently engaged in some conversations during which Henry told Nichols about the robbery. Nichols testified about these conversations at Henry’s trial, and Henry was convicted.
This Court reversed, finding that the Government had “ ‘deliberately elicited’ incriminating statements from Henry within the meaning of Massiah. ” Id., at 270. Several facts were emphasized in The Chief Justice’s opinion for the Court: that Nichols was acting as an informant for the Government and therefore had an incentive to produce useful information; that Henry was unaware of Nichols’ role as a Government informant; and, finally, that Henry and Nichols were incarcerated together at the time the conversations took place. With respect to this last fact, the Court reasoned that “confinement may bring into play subtle influences that will make [an individual] particularly susceptible to the ploys of undercover Government agents,” influences that were facilitated by Nichols’ “apparent status as a person sharing a common plight.” Id., at 274. Considering Nichols’ conversations with Henry in light of these circumstances, the Court concluded that Nichols “deliberately used his position to secure incriminating information from Henry when counsel was not present” in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Id., at 270-271. The Government argued that it should not be held responsible for Nichols’ conduct because its agent had instructed Nichols not to question Henry and had not intended that Nichols take affirmative steps to obtain incriminating statements. We rejected this argument, finding that, under the circumstances, the agent “must have known” that Nichols would take affirmative steps to secure incriminating information. Id., at 271. Consequently, the Court held, “[b]y intentionally creating a situation likely to induce Henry to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, the Government violated Henry’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” Id., at 274.
C
The State contends that the decisive fact in Massiah and Henry was that the police set up the confrontation between the accused and a police agent at which incriminating statements were elicited. Supported by the United States as amicus curiae, the State maintains that the Sixth Amendment is violated only when police intentionally take this or some equivalent step. Because Moulton rather than Colson initiated the recorded telephone conversations and requested the December 26 meeting, the State concludes that Moulton’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated here.
In the first place, the identity of the party who instigated the meeting at which the Government obtained incriminating statements was not decisive or even important to our decisions in Massiah or Henry. Thus, while in Massiah it may have been the Government agent who was responsible for setting up the meeting with the defendant, one discovers this only by looking to the opinions of the Court of Appeals. It is not mentioned in this Court’s opinion since the issue of who set up the meeting with whom was not pertinent to our disposition. Moreover, four years after Massiah, the Court summarily reversed a conviction where the defendant requested the meeting and initiated and led the conversation in which incriminating statements were made to an undercover informant. Beatty v. United States, 389 U. S. 45 (1967) (per curiam). In that case, the Solicitor General made the same argument that he and the State make today, see Brief in Opposition, Beatty v. United States, O. T. 1967, No. 338, pp. 5-8; we rejected this argument in an opinion that simply cited Massiah. Finally, in Henry, we deemed it “irrelevant that in Massiah the agent had to arrange the meeting between Massiah and his codefendant while here the agents were fortunate enough to have an undercover informant already in close proximity to the accused.” 447 U. S., at 272, n. 10.
Beyond this, the State’s attempt to limit our holdings in Massiah and Henry fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the right we recognized in those cases. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused, at least after the initiation of formal charges, the right to rely on counsel as a “medium” between him and the State. As noted above, this guarantee includes the State’s affirmative obligation not to act in a manner that circumvents the protections accorded the accused by invoking this right. The determination whether particular action by state agents violates the accused’s right to the assistance of counsel must be made in light of this obligation. Thus, the Sixth Amendment is not violated whenever — by luck or happenstance — the State obtains incriminating statements from the accused after the right to counsel has attached. See Henry, 447 U. S., at 276 (Powell, J., concurring). However, knowing exploitation by the State of an opportunity to confront the accused without counsel being present is as much a breach of the State’s obligation not to circumvent the right to the assistance of counsel as is the intentional creation of such an opportunity. Accordingly, the Sixth Amendment is violated when the State obtains incriminating statements by knowingly circumventing the accused’s right to have counsel present in a confrontation between the accused and a state agent.
Ill
Applying this principle to the case at hand, it is clear that the State violated Moulton’s Sixth Amendment right when it arranged to record conversations between Moulton and its undercover informant, Colson. It was the police who suggested to Colson that he record his telephone conversations with Moulton. Having learned from these recordings that Moulton and Colson were going to meet, the police asked Colson to let them put a body wire transmitter on him to record what was said. Police Chief Keating admitted that, when they made this request, the police knew — as they must have known from the recorded telephone conversations— that Moulton and Colson were meeting for the express purpose of discussing the pending charges and planning a defense for the trial. The police thus knew that Moulton would make statements that he had a constitutional right not to make to their agent prior to consulting with counsel. As in Henry, the fact that the police were “fortunate enough to have an undercover informant already in close proximity to the accused” does not excuse their conduct under these circumstances. 447 U. S., at 272, n. 10. By concealing the fact that Colson was an agent of the State, the police denied Moulton the opportunity to consult with counsel and thus denied him the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
> hH
The Solicitor General argues that the incriminating statements obtained by the Maine police nevertheless should not be suppressed because the police had other, legitimate reasons for listening to Moulton’s conversations with Colson, namely, to investigate Moulton’s alleged plan to kill Gary Elwell and to insure Colson’s safety. In Massiah, the Government also contended that incriminating statements obtained as a result of its deliberate efforts should not be excluded because law enforcement agents had “the right, if not indeed the duty, to continue their investigation of [Massiah] and his alleged criminal associates... 377 U. S., at 206. There, as here, the Government argued that this circumstance justified its surveillance and cured any improper acts or purposes. We rejected this argument, and held:
“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.” Id., at 207 (emphasis omitted).
We reaffirm this holding, which states a sensible solution to a difficult problem. The police have an interest in the thorough investigation of crimes for which formal charges have already been filed. They also have an interest in investigating new or additional crimes. Investigations of either type of crime may require surveillance of individuals already under indictment. Moreover, law enforcement officials investigating an individual suspected of committing one crime and formally charged with having committed another crime obviously seek to discover evidence useful at a trial of either crime. In seeking evidence pertaining to pending charges, however, the Government’s investigative powers are limited by the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused. To allow the admission of evidence obtained from the accused in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights whenever the police assert an alternative, legitimate reason for their surveillance invites abuse by law enforcement personnel in the form of fabricated investigations and risks the evisceration of the Sixth Amendment right recognized in Massiah. On the other hand, to exclude evidence pertaining to charges as to which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached at the time the evidence was obtained, simply because other charges were pending at that time, would unnecessarily frustrate the public’s interest in the investigation of criminal activities. Consequently, incriminating statements pertaining to pending charges are inadmissible at the trial of those charges, notwithstanding the fact that the police were also investigating other crimes, if, in obtaining this evidence, the State violated the Sixth Amendment by knowingly circumventing the accused’s right to the assistance of counsel.
Because we hold that the Maine police knowingly circumvented Moulton’s right to have counsel present at a confrontation between Moulton and a police agent, the fact that the police had additional reasons for recording Moulton’s meeting with Colson is irrelevant. The decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Indeed, in pursuing an anonymous tip received earlier that day that the stolen truck could be found at Belfast Dodge, one of the officers had conducted a consent search of the main building of the dealership facility.
Seven months after the conclusion of Moulton’s trial, Colson pleaded guilty to two counts of theft. The prosecutor recommended that Colson be sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, all but 15 days to be suspended, and placed on probation for 2 years. Colson also agreed to make restitution up to $2,000 diming the probationary period. The trial court accepted this recommendation and sentenced Colson accordingly.
Colson testified that he never told Moulton about the threatening calls that he had received.
The exchange went as follows:
“[Moulton:] You know I thought of a way to eliminate them. Remember we were talking about it before?
“[Colson:] Yes, you thought of a way?
“[Moulton:] Yeah, but... I don’t think we ought to go for it.
“[Colson:] Is it foolproof?
“[Moulton:] No.
“[Colson:] Is it, is it fairly foolproof?
“[Moulton:] I like it. I think its just for the....
“[Colson:] Well let me [hear it].”
Moulton explained that he had considered using air rifles to shoot poisoned darts and the conversation then turned to joking about a magazine that instructed readers how to build bombs to kill large numbers of people. Exh. S-4, Tr. of Dec. 26 Meeting 18-19.
Colson began doing this immediately after Moulton vetoed the plan to eliminate witnesses. Colson indicated that he did not have copies of all the discovery materials, and Moulton went outside to his car to get his copies. While Moulton was gone, Colson sighed heavily and whispered “[o]h boy, I just hope I can make it through this” into the microphone. Then, when Moulton returned moments later, Colson immediately stated, slowly and deliberately: “I want you to help me with some dates. One date I cannot remember Caps [Moulton’s nickname], just can’t remember, I know it was in December, what night did we break into Lothrop Ford? What date?” Id,., at 23.
Justice Black explained in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963):
“[R]eason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court... cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public’s interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defenses. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.” Id., at 344.
Cf. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387 (1977): “[T]he lawyer is the essential medium through which the demands and commitments of the sovereign are communicated to the citizen. If, in the long run, we are seriously concerned about the individual’s effective representation by counsel, the State cannot be permitted to dishonor its promise to this lawyer.” Id., at 415 (Stevens, J., concurring) (footnote omitted).
The parties have taken pains to assure us that Massiah’s friend Colson and Moulton’s friend Colson are unrelated.
Justice Stewart noted that this view of the right to counsel “no more than reflects a constitutional principle established as long ago as Powell v. Alabama, ” 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]... as at the trial itself.’” Massiah, 377 U. S., at 205 (quoting Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 57 (1932)).
It is not clear whether the informant asked to meet with Massiah or vice versa. Both the opinion for the Second Circuit and the dissent state only that, on the instructions of a Government agent, Colson invited Massiah into his ear to discuss their case; neither opinion establishes who requested the meeting in the first place. See United States v. Massiah, 307 F. 2d 62, 66 (1962); id., at 72 (Hays, J., dissenting). It is quite plausible that Massiah asked to see Colson who then proposed meeting in his car. In fact, there is nothing in the record in Massiah to support even the assertion of the Court of Appeals that Colson rather than Massiah suggested meeting in Colson’s car, although the inference is logical enough. See App. to Brief for United States in Massiah v. United States, O. T. 1963, No. 199, pp. 125a-175a (testimony of Agent Murphy).
In his amicus brief for the United States in this case, the Solicitor General suggests that Beatty did not survive Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387 (1977), which, he contends, modified Massiah to require affirmative interrogation by the Government. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17, n. 12. That argument, however, was expressly rejected when the Solicitor General made it in Henry. See 447 U. S., at 271 (“While affirmative interrogation, absent waiver, would certainly satisfy Massiah, we are not persuaded, as the Government contends, that Brewer v. Williams... modified Massiah’s ‘deliberately elicited’ test”). Cf. also, Brief for United States in United States v. Henry, O. T. 1979, No. 121, p. 26
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
By a complaint filed on July 16, 1945, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, 28 nonunion employees of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad began an action for declaratory relief, an injunction, and damages against the railroad and a number, of unions representing its employees. Particularly relevant to the complaint were those provisions of the fourth and fifth paragraphs of § 2 of the Railway Labor Act which make it
“unlawful for any carrier to interfere in any way with the organization of its employees, or to use the funds of the carrier in maintaining or assisting or contributing to any labor organization, labor representative, or other agency of collective bargaining, or in performing any work therefor, or to influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain or not to join or remain members of any labor organization . . .
and which forbid any carrier from requiring “any person seeking employment to sign any contract or agreement promising to join ... a labor organization . . . .” Also relied upon was the duty of the exclusive bargaining agent to represent fairly and without discrimination all members of the class represented. See Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192. The factual allegations set forth a pattern of discriminations effected by the railroad and the defendant unions against nonunion employees.
By a settlement agreement dated December 1,1945, the 28 plaintiffs released the railroad and union defendants from all claims or actions then accrued “in consideration of the sum of $5000.00 this day paid to the undersigned ... and the consent of said defendants to the entry of a decree in said action, a copy of which is attached hereto . . . .” The attached decree was adopted by the District Court on December 7, 1945. After detailing and then enjoining a number of specific discriminations on the basis of union status, the decree provided that the defendants
“are further enjoined, in the application of the provisions of the regularly adopted- bargaining agreements in effect between the defendant Railroad and the defendant Unions, or that may be hereafter in effect between the defendant Railroad and the defendant Unions in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, from discriminating against the plaintiffs and the classes represented by them in this action by reason of or on account of the refusal of said employes to join or retain their membership in any of defendant labor organizations, or any labor organization . . . .”
The District Court retained jurisdiction over the matter “for the purpose of„ entering such further orders as may be deemed necessary or proper.”
In 1951 the Railway Labor Act was amended to permit, under certain circumstances, a contract requiring a union shop. In order to avail themselves of the newly granted statutory privilege, in 1957 the petitioners filed in the District Court a motion under Rule 60 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure asking for a sufficient modification of the consent decree to make clear that it
“shall have no prospective application to prohibit defendants, or any of them, from negotiating, entering into, or applying and enforcing, any agreement or agreements authorized by Section 2, Eleventh, of the Railway Labor Act, as amended January 10, 1951.”
The motion, which was opposed by the railroad and its suing employees (respondents here), was denied after a hearing at which was presented unrebutted evidence of assaults, destruction of property, and various other malicious acts directed by members of the union at any employee (union or nonunion) who had worked during a 58-day strike in 1955. The District Court acknowledged its authority to modify the consent decree but declined to do so, primarily out of regard for the fact that the unions (petitioners here) had consented by the decree not to have a union shop then or in the future, an undertaking which the District Court considered was not unlawful either before or after the 1951 amendments. The court stated:
“It is to be remembered that the provisions of the Railway Labor Act made illegal a union shop in 1945, when the injunction was agreed upon. Hence, it was then unnecessary for the railroad and the unions to agree, as they did, that the non-union members should not then be required to join or maintain membership in any of their craft unions as a condition precedent to employment. The law so prohibited, Section 152, Fourth and Fifth, Title 45, United States Code Annotated, Railway Labor Act. The railroad and unions went further to provide by their agreement that no such requirement of union membership should thereafter be in effect in any bargaining agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. The 1951 amendment to the Act did no more than make negotiations for a union shop permissive, Railway Employees’ Dept. v. Hanson’, supra. The amendment did not nullify the agreement or the injunction. It did not prohibit an agreement between the railroad and the unions that a union shop should not exist. Hence, the Court leaves the parties as they agreed to be and to remain.” 165 F. Supp. 443, 449.
Though making it clear that evidence of continued union hostility against nonunion employees was not decisive, the District. Court gave some weight to the administrative difficulty of preventing unlawful discriminations against nonunion employees that might be facilitated if there were a union shop. The Sixth Circuit affirmed “for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Chief Judge Shel-bourne” in the District Court. 272 F. 2d 56, 58. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the issues involved. 362 U. S. 948.
At the outset it should be noted that the power of the District Court to modify this decree is not drawn in question. That proposition indeed could not well be disputed. See Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421; United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U. S. 106; Chrysler Corp. v. United States, 316 U. S. 556. In the Swift case, Mr. Justice Cardozo put the matter thus, at 114:
“We are not doubtful of the power of a court of equity to modify an injunction in adaptation to changed conditions though it was entered by consent. . . . Power to modify the decree was reserved by its very terms, and so from the beginning went hand in hand with its restraints. If the reservation had been omitted, power there still would be by force of principles inherent in the jurisdiction of the chancery. A continuing decree of injunction directed to events to come is subject always to adaptation as events may shape the need. Ladner v. Siegel, 298 Pa. St. 487, 494, 495.”
There is also no dispute but that a sound judicial discretion may call for the modification of the terms of an injunctive decree if the circumstances, whether of law or fact, obtaining at the time of its issuance have changed, or new ones have since arisen. The source of the power to modify is of course the fact that an injunction often requires continuing supervision by the issuing court and always a continuing willingness to apply its powers and processes on behalf of the party who obtained that equitable relief. Firmness and stability must no doubt be attributed to continuing injunctive relief based on adjudicated facts and law, and neither the plaintiff nor the court should be subjected to the unnecessary burden of re-establishing what has once been decided. Nevertheless the court cannot be required to disregard significant changes in law or facts if it is “satisfied that what it has been doing has been turned through changing circumstances into an instrument of wrong.” United States v. Swift & Co., supra, at 114-115. A balance must thus be struck between the policies of res judicata and the right of the court to apply modified measures to changed circumstances.
Where there is such a balance of imponderables there must be wide discretion in the District Court. But discretion is never without limits and these limits are often far clearer to the reviewing court when the new circumstances involve a change in law rather than facts. When the decree in this case was originally made, union shop agreements were prohibited by the Railway Labor Act and thus constituted in themselves a form of statutorily forbidden discrimination. Congress has since, in the clearest terms, legislated that bargaining for and the existence of a union shop contract, satisfying the conditions provided in § 2 Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act, are not forbidden discriminations by union or employer. Congress has therefore determined that whatever ways such a union shop arrangement facilitates other, unauthorized discriminations must be borne as inescapable incidents of a legislatively approved contract term. •
Had the 1945 decree simply represented relief awarded by the District Court after a trial of the action instituted by petitioners, there could be little doubt but that, faced with the 1951 amendment to the Railway Labor Act, it would have been improvident for the court to continue in effect this provision of the injunction prohibiting a union shop agreement as being unlawful per se, or its use as an instrument to effectuate other statutorily forbidden dis-criminations. That provision was well enough under the earlier Railway Labor Act, but to continue it after the 1951 amendment would be to render protection in no way authorized by the needs of safeguarding statutory rights at the expense of a privilege denied and deniable to no other union. This conclusion would not be affected by the circumstance, which the District Court here found, that the unions' hostility to nonunion employees still continued, for any. discriminations that might be facilitated by the union shop clause have been legislatively determined to be an expense more than offset by the benefits of such a provision.
What seems plain to us in reason, as to a litigated decree, is amply supported by precedent. In Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., supra, this Court was also required to deal with the effect upon an outstanding injunction of subsequent congressional action. The Court had earlier held that a bridge across the Ohio River obstructed navigation in such a way as to be in conflict with certain Acts of Congress regulating navigation on the river. The decree “directed that the obstruction be removed, either by elevating the bridge to a height designated, or by abatement.” 18 How., at 429. A later Act of Congress declared the bridge to be a lawful structure in its existing position and elevation. The injunction was dissolved, the Court saying, 18 How., at 430-432:
“So far, therefore, as this bridge created an obstruction to the free navigation of the river, in view of the previous acts of congress, they are to be regarded as modified by this subsequent legislation; and, although it still may be an obstruction in fact, is not so in the contemplation of law. . . . But that part of the decree, directing the abatement of the obstruction, is executory, a continuing decree, which requires not only the removal of the bridge, but enjoins the defendants against any reconstruction or continuance. Now, whether it is a future existing or continuing obstruction depends upon the question whether or not it interferes with the right of navigation. If, in the mean time, since the decree, this right has been modified by the competent authority, so that the bridge is no longer an unlawful obstruction, it is quite plain the decree of the court cannot be enforced. There is no longer any interference with the enjoyment of the public right inconsistent with law, no more than there would be where the plaintiff himself had consented to it, after the rendition of the decree. Suppose the decree had been executed, and after that the passage of the law in question, can it be doubted but that the defendants would have had a right to reconstruct it? And is it not equally clear that the right to maintain it, if not abated, existed from the moment of the enactment?”
The principles of the Wheeling Bridge case have repeatedly been followed by lower federal and state courts. We find no reason to recede from them.
That it would be an abuse of discretion to deny a modification of the present injunction if it had not resulted from a consent decree we regard as established. Is this result affected by the fact that we are dealing with a consent decree? Again we start with the Swift case, supra, where the Court held, at pp. 114 — 115:
“The result is all one whether the decree has been entered after litigation or by consent. ... In either event, a court does not abdicate its power to revoke or modify its mandate if satisfied that what it has been doing has been turned through changing circumstances into an instrument of wrong. We reject the argument for the interveners that a decree entered upon consent is to be treated as a contract and not as a judicial act. . . . But in truth what was then adjudged was not a contract as to any one. The consent is to be read as directed toward events as they then were. It was not an abandonment of the right to exact revision in the future, if revision should become necessary in adaptation to events to be.”
This Court has never departed from that general rule. We continue to adhere to it because of the policy it expresses. The parties cannot, by giving each other consideration, purchase from a court of equity a continuing injunction. In a case like this the District Court’s authority to adopt a consent decree comes only from the statute which the decree is intended to enforce. Frequently of course the terms arrived at by the parties are accepted without change by the adopting court. But just as the adopting court is free to_ reject agreed-upon terms as not in furtherance of statutory objectives, so must it be free to modify the terms of a consent decree when a change in law brings those terms in conflict with statutory objectives. In short, it was the Railway Labor Act, and only incidentally the parties, that the District Court served in entering the consent decree now before us. The court must be free to continue to further the objectives of that Act when its provisions are amended. The parties have no power to require of the court continuing enforcement of rights the statute no longer gives.
The record leaves no room for doubt that the parties in fact attempted to conform the consent decree to the dictates of the Railway Labor Act as it then read. We can attach no weight to either of the two factors that led the lower courts to find that the parties had bargained, free of the requirements of the Act, for an injunction serving only their own interests. The first factor — that an independently arrived at contract rather than a decree effectuating rights accorded by the Act must have been contemplated because the unions agreed to equitable relief when their acts were already declared unlawful by statute — ignores completely the fact that this was precisely the relief sought in the complaint filed by the 28 plaintiffs and the relief that had been granted after litigation in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192, and in Graham v. Brotherhood of Firemen, 338 U. S. 232. The second factor — that the unions agreed to be bound as to bargaining agreements that might later be in effect as well as the contract then in effect — ignores the fact that the parties, in. all likelihood, meant only to cover any later bargaining agreements under the Act as it read at the time óf the consent decree.
The type of decree the parties bargained for is the same as the only type of decree a court can properly grant — one with all those strengths and infirmities .of any litigated decree which arise out of the fact that the court will not continue to exercise its powers thereunder when a change in law or facts has made inequitable what was once equitable. The parties could not become the conscience of the equity court and decide for it once and for all what was equitable and what was not, because the court was not acting to enforce a promise but to enforce a statute.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed, and the case remanded to it for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
45 U. S. C. § 152.
Each of the 28 plaintiffs had claimed $5,000 in damages.
45 U. S. C. § 152 Eleventh. See Railway Employes’ Department v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225.
The relevant provisions of Rule 60 (b) are as follows: “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: .... (5) ... it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”
In the view we take of the case we need not consider whether such a commitment of indefinite duration is valid.
In McGrath v. Potash, 91 U. S. App. D. C. 94, 199 F. 2d 166, after Congress passed a statute excluding from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act deportation proceedings, the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an injunction against the Government requiring compliance with that Act. There are many cases where a mere change in decisional law has been held to justify modification of an outstanding injunction. E. g., Ladner v. Siegel, 298 Pa. 487, 148 A. 699 (whether a garage in a residential district is a nuisance); Santa Rita Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 112 Mont. 359, 116 P. 2d 1012 (what federal instrumentalities are exempt from state taxation); Coca-Cola Co. v. Standard Bottling Co., 138 F. 2d 788 (whether the use of the word “cola” infringed Coca-Cola’s trademark); and see Western Union Tel. Co. v. International Brotherhood, 133 F. 2d 955 (whether ordinary strikes are forbidden by the Sherman Act and what picketing can constitutionally be enjoined).
In Coca-Cola Co. v. Standard Bottling Co., 138 F. 2d 788, 790, a Circuit Court could say with some certainty: “We know of no case which holds that a consent decree imposing a continuing injunction deprives the court of its supervisory jurisdiction in the matter.”
We consider unpersuasive the argument of the railroad that in 1945 there was already on foot a movement to amend the Railway Labor Act so as to permit union shop agreements.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 by
Mr. Justice Douglas,
announced by Mr. Justice Reed.
The United States filed a libel under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (52 Stat. 1044, 21 U. S. C. § 334), seeking seizure of 16 machines labeled “Sinuothermic.” The libel alleged that the device was misbranded within the meaning of the Act (52 Stat. 1050, 21 U. S. C. § 352 (a)) in that representations in a leaflet entitled “The Road to Health” relative to the curative and therapeutic powers of the device in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment and prevention of disease were false and misleading. It charged that the leaflet had accompanied the device in interstate commerce.
Respondent, Fred Urbuteit, appeared as claimant of several of the devices. He admitted that the devices and leaflets had been shipped in interstate commerce,- but denied that they were shipped together or that they were related to each other. He also denied that the statements made in the leaflet were false or misleading. The case was tried without a jury and the articles were ordered condemned. The judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals. 164 F. 2d 245. The case is here on certiorari to resolve the conflict between it and Kordel v. United States, ante, p. 345.
Respondent Urbuteit terms himself a naturopathic physician and conducts the Sinuothermic Institute in Tampa, Florida. The machines against which the libel was filed are electrical devices allegedly aiding in the diagnosis and cure of various diseases and physical disorders such as cancer, diabetes, tuberculosis, arthritis, and paralysis. The alleged cures effected through its use are described in the allegedly false and misleading leaflet, “The Road to Health,” published by Urbuteit and distributed for use with the machines.
Urbuteit shipped from Florida a number of these machines to one Kelsch, a former pupil of his who lives in Ohio. Kelsch used these machines in treating his patients and, though he did not receive them as a merchant, he sold some to patients. As part of this transaction Urbu-teit contracted to furnish Kelsch with a supply of leaflets, which were sent from Florida to Ohio at a different time than when the machines were forwarded. Kelsch used the leaflets to explain the machines to his patients.
The leaflets seem to have followed the shipment of the machines. But as Kordel v. United States holds, that is immaterial where the advertising matter that was sent was designed to serve and did in fact serve the purposes of labeling.. This machine bore only the words, U. S. Patent Sinuothermic Trade Mark. It was the leaflets that explained the usefulness of the device in the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of various diseases. Measured by functional standards, as § 201 (m) (2) of the Act permits, these leaflets constituted one of the types of labeling which the Act condemns.
The power to condemn is contained in § 304 (a) and is confined to articles “adulterated or misbranded when introduced into or while in interstate commerce.” We do not, however, read that provision as requiring the advertising matter to travel with the machine. The reasons of policy which argue against that in the case of criminal prosecutions under § 303 are equally forcible when we come to libels under § 304 (a). Moreover, the common sense of the matter is to view the interstate transaction in its entirety — the purpose of the advertising and its actual use. In this case it is plain to us that the movements of machines and leaflets in interstate commerce were a single interrelated activity, not separate or isolated ones. The Act is not concerned with the purification of the stream of commerce in the abstract. The problem is a practical one of consumer protection, not dialectics. The fact that the false literature leaves in a separate mail does not save the article from being misbranded. Where by functional standards the two transactions are integrated, the requirements of § 304 (a) are satisfied, though the mailings or shipments are at different times.
The Court of Appeals held that certain evidence tendered by Urbuteit as to the therapeutic or curative value of the machines had been erroneously excluded at the trial, a ruling that we are not inclined to disturb. Petitioner claims, however, that the error was not prejudicial. The argument is that since the evidence of the false and misleading character of the advertising as respects the diagnostic capabilities of the machines was overwhelming, that false representation was adequate to sustain the condemnation, though it be assumed that the therapeutic phase of the case was not established. We do not reach that question. Since the case must be remanded to the Court of Appeals, that question and any others that have survived will be open for consideration by it.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Murphy, and Mr. Justice Jackson dissent for the reasons stated in their dissent in Kordel v. United States, ante, p. 345, decided this day, although this case arises under the limitation of § 304 (a), “while in interstate commerce,” which has a different scope from § 301 (k), while “held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce.”
The relevant portion of this section reads as follows:
“Any article of food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded when introduced into or while in interstate commerce . . . shall be liable to be proceeded against while in interstate commerce, or at any time thereafter, on libel of information and condemned in any district court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the article is found . . .
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The city of Lakewood, a suburban community bordering Cleveland, Ohio, appeals a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit enjoining enforcement of its local ordinance regulating the placement of newsracks. The court’s decision was based in part on its conclusion that the ordinance vests the mayor with unbridled discretion over which publishers may place newsracks on public property and where.
I
Prior to 1983, the city of Lakewood absolutely prohibited the private placement of any structure on public property. On the strength of that law, the city denied the Plain Dealer Publishing Company (Newspaper) permission to place its coin-operated newspaper dispensing devices on city sidewalks. In response, the Newspaper brought suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio challenging the ordinance. The District Court adjudged the absolute prohibition unconstitutional, but delayed entering a permanent injunction to give the city time to amend its law.
Although the city could have appealed the District Court’s judgment, it decided instead to adopt two ordinances permitting the placement of structures on city property under certain conditions. One of those ordinances specifically concerns newsracks. §901.181, Codified Ordinances, City of Lakewood (1984). That ordinance gives the mayor the authority to grant or deny applications for annual newsrack permits. If the mayor denies an application, he is required to “stat[e] the reasons for such denial.” In the event the mayor grants an application, the city issues an annual permit subject to several terms and conditions. Among them are: (1) approval of the newsrack design by the city’s Architectural Board of Review; (2) an agreement by the newsrack owner to indemnify the city against any liability arising from the newsrack, guaranteed by a $100,000 insurance policy to that effect; and (3) any “other terms and conditions deemed necessary and reasonable by the Mayor.”
Dissatisfied with the new ordinance, the Newspaper elected not to seek a permit, and instead amended its complaint in the District Court to challenge facially the law as amended. The District Court found the ordinance constitutional in its entirety, and entered judgment in the city’s favor. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding the ordinance unconstitutional in three respects. First, it held that the ordinance gives the mayor unbounded discretion to grant or deny a permit application and to place unlimited additional terms and conditions on any permit that issues. Second, it concluded that in the absence of any express standards governing newsrack design, the design approval requirement effectively gives the Board unbridled discretion to deny applications. Finally, a majority of the panel decided that the indemnity and insurance requirements for newsrack owners violate the First Amendment because no similar burdens are placed on owners of other structures on public property. The court found that the foregoing provisions of the law were not severable, and therefore held the entire ordinance unconstitutional insofar as it regulates newsracks in commercial districts. The city appealed, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 480 U. S. 904 (1987).
HH hH
At the outset, we confront the issue whether the Newspaper may bring a facial challenge to the city’s ordinance. We conclude that it may.
A
Recognizing the explicit protection accorded speech and the press in the text of the First Amendment, our cases have long held that when a licensing statute allegedly vests unbridled discretion in a government official over whether to permit or deny expressive activity, one who is subject to the law may challenge it facially without the necessity of first applying for, and being denied, a license. E. g., Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 56 (1965) (“In the area of freedom of expression it is well established that one has standing to challenge a statute on the ground that it delegates overly broad licensing discretion to an administrative office,. whether or not his conduct could be proscribed by a properly drawn statute, and whether or not he applied for a license”) (emphasis added); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97 (1940) (in the First Amendment context, “[o]ne who might have had a license for the asking may... call into question the whole scheme of licensing when he is prosecuted for failure to procure it”). See also Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969) (“ ‘The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of [a licensing law] the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands’” (quoting Jones v. Opelika, 316 U. S. 584, 602 (1942) (Stone, C. J., dissenting), adopted per curiam on rehearing, 319 U. S. 103, 104 (1943))); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 452-453 (1938) (“As the ordinance [providing for unbridled licensing discretion] is void on its face, it was not necessary for appellant to seek a permit under it”); cf. Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U. S. 947, 956-957 (1984).
At the root of this long line of precedent is the time-tested knowledge that in the area of free expression a licensing statute placing unbridled discretion in the hands of a government official or agency constitutes a prior restraint and may result in censorship. E. g., Shuttlesworth, supra, at 151; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536 (1965); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 321-322 (1958); Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290, 294 (1951); Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268 (1951); Saia v. New York, 334 U. S. 558 (1948). And these evils engender identifiable risks to free expression that can be effectively alleviated only through a facial challenge. First, the mere existence of the licensor’s unfettered discretion, coupled with the power of prior restraint, intimidates parties into censoring their own speech, even if the discretion and power are never actually abused. As we said in Thornhill:
“Proof of an abuse of power in the particular case has never been deemed a requisite for attack on the constitutionality of a statute purporting to license the dissemination of ideas.... The power of the licensor against which John Milton directed his assault by his ‘Appeal for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing’ is pernicious not merely by reason of the censure of particular comments but by the reason of the threat to censure comments on matters of public concern. It is not merely the sporadic abuse of power by the censor but the pervasive threat inherent in its very existence that constitutes the danger to freedom of discussion.” 310 U. S., at 97 (emphases added).
See also Freedman, supra. Self-censorship is immune to an “as applied” challenge, for it derives from the individual’s own actions, not an abuse of government power. It is not difficult to visualize a newspaper that relies to a substantial degree on single issue sales feeling significant pressure to endorse the incumbent mayor in an upcoming election, or to refrain from criticizing him, in order to receive a favorable and speedy disposition on its permit application. Only standards limiting the licensor’s discretion will eliminate this danger by adding an element of certainty fatal to self-censorship. Cf. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U. S. 489, 498 (1982) (vagueness doctrine). And only a facial challenge can effectively test the statute for these standards.
Second, the absence of express standards makes it difficult to distinguish, “as applied,” between a licensor’s legitimate denial of a permit and its illegitimate abuse of censorial power. Standards provide the guideposts that check the licensor and allow courts quickly and easily to determine whether the licensor is discriminating against disfavored speech. Without these guideposts, post hoc rationalizations by the licensing official and the use of shifting or illegitimate criteria are far too easy, making it difficult for courts to determine in any particular case whether the licensor is permitting favorable, and suppressing unfavorable, expression. See, e. g., Joseph H. Munson Co., supra, at 964, n. 12; Cox v. Louisiana, supra, at 557. Further, the' difficulty and delay inherent in the “as applied” challenge’ can itself discourage litigation. A newspaper espousing an unpopular viewpoint on a shoestring budget may be the likely target for a retaliatory permit denial, but may not have the time or financial means to challenge the licensor’s action. That paper might instead find it easier to capitulate to what it perceives to be the mayor’s preferred viewpoint, or simply to close up shop. Even if that struggling paper were willing and able to litigate the case successfully, the eventual relief may be “too little and too late.” Until a judicial decree to the contrary, the licensor’s prohibition stands. In the interim, opportunities for speech are irretrievably lost. Freedman, supra, at 57; see also Saia, supra, at 560; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 306 (1940). In sum, without standards to fetter the licensor’s discretion, the difficulties of proof and the case-by-case nature of “as applied” challenges render the li-censor’s action in large measure effectively unreviewable.
B
The foregoing concepts form the heart of our test to distinguish laws that are vulnerable to facial challenge from those that are not. As discussed above, we have previously identified two major First Amendment risks associated with unbridled licensing schemes: self-censorship by speakers in order to avoid being denied a license to speak; and the difficulty of effectively detecting, reviewing, and correcting content-based censorship “as applied” without standards by which to measure the licensor’s action. It is when statutes threaten these risks to a significant degree that courts must entertain an immediate facial attack on the law. Therefore, a facial challenge lies whenever a licensing law gives a government official or agency substantial power to discriminate based on the content or viewpoint of speech by suppressing disfavored speech or disliked speakers. This is not to say that the press or a speaker may challenge as censorship any law involving discretion to which it is subject. The law must have a close enough nexus to expression, or to conduct commonly associated with expression, to pose a real and substantial threat of the identified censorship risks.
The regulatory scheme in the present case contains two features which, at least in combination, justify the allowance of a facial challenge. First, Lakewood’s ordinance requires that the Newspaper apply annually for newsrack licenses. Thus, it is the sort of system in which an individual must apply for multiple licenses over time, or periodically renew a license. When such a system is applied to speech, or to conduct commonly associated with speech, the licensor does not necessarily view the text of the words about to be spoken, but can measure their probable content or viewpoint by speech already uttered. See Saia v. New York, supra. A speaker in this position is under no illusion regarding the effect of the “licensed” speech on the ability to continue speaking in the future. Yet demonstrating.the link between “licensed” expression and the denial of a later license might well prove impossible. While perhaps not as direct a threat to speech as a regulation allowing a licensor to view the actual content of the speech to be licensed or permitted, see Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536 (1965); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58 (1963), a multiple or periodic licensing requirement is sufficiently threatening to invite judicial concern.
A second feature of the licensing system at issue here is that it is directed narrowly and specifically at expression or conduct commonly associated with expression: the circulation of newspapers. Such a framework creates an agency or establishes an official charged particularly with reviewing speech, or conduct commonly associated with it, breeding an “expertise” tending to favor censorship over speech. Freedman, supra. Indeed, a law requiring thé licensing of printers has historically been declared the archetypal censorship statute. See 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *152. Here again, without standards to bound the licensor, speakers denied a license will have no way of proving that the decision was unconstitutionally motivated, and, faced with that prospect, they will be pressured to conform their speech to the licensor’s unreviewable preference.
Because of these features in the regulatory system at issue here, we think that a facial challenge is appropriate, and that standards controlling the mayor’s discretion must be required. Of course, the city may require periodic licensing, and may even have special licensing procedures for conduct commonly associated with expression; but the Constitution requires that the city establish neutral criteria to insure that the licensing decision is not based on the content or viewpoint of the speech being considered.
In contrast to the type of law at issue in this case, laws of general application that are not aimed at conduct commonly associated with expression and’do not permit licensing determinations to be made on the basis of ongoing expression or the words about to be spoken, carry with them little danger of censorship. For example, a law requiring building permits is rarely effective as a means of censorship. To be sure, on rare occasion an opportunity for censorship will exist, such as when an unpopular newspaper seeks to build a new plant. But such laws provide too blunt a censorship instrument to warrant judicial intervention prior to an allegation of actual misuse. And if such charges are made, the general application of the statute to areas unrelated to expression will provide the courts a yardstick with which to measure the licen-sor’s occasional speech-related decision.
The foregoing discussion explains why the dissent’s analogy between newspapers and soda vendors is inapposite. See post, at 788-789. Newspapers are in the business of expression, while soda vendors are in the business of selling soft drinks. Even if the soda vendor engages in speech, that speech is not related to the soda; therefore preventing it from installing its machines may penalize unrelated speech, but will not directly prevent that speech from occurring. In sum, a law giving the mayor unbridled discretion to decide which soda vendors may place their machines on public property does not vest him with frequent opportunities to exercise substantial power over thé content or viewpoint of the vendor’s speech by suppressing the speech or directly controlling the vendor’s ability to speak.
The proper analogy is between newspapers and leaflets. It is settled that leafletters may facially challenge licensing laws. See, e. g., Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60 (1960); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938). This settled law is based on the accurate premise that peaceful pamphleteering “is not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper.” Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 419 (1971); see also Lovell, supra, at 450-452. The dissent’s theory therefore would turn the law on its head. That result cannot be justified by relying on the meaningless distinction that here the newspapers are ultimately distributed by a machine rather than by hand. First, the ordinance held invalid in Lovell applied to distribution “by hand or otherwise.” 303 U. S., at 447. The Court did not even consider holding the law invalid only as to distribution by hand. Second, such a distinction makes no sense in logic or theory. The effectiveness of the newsrack as a means of distribution, especially for low-budget, controversial neighborhood newspapers, means that the twin threats of self-censorship and undetectable censorship are, if anything, greater for news-racks than for pamphleteers. Cf. Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 164 (1939) (relying on the effectiveness of pam-phleteering); Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 145-146 (1943) (same).
C
In an analysis divorced from a careful examination of the unique risks associated with censorship just discussed and their relation to the law before us, the dissent reasons that if a particular manner of speech may be prohibited entirely, then no “activity protected by the First Amendment” can be implicated by a law imposing less than a total prohibition. It then finds that a total ban on newsracks would be constitutional. Therefore, the dissent concludes, the actual ordinance at issue involves no “activity protected by the First Amendment,” and thus is not subject to facial challenge. However, that reasoning is little more than a legal sleight-of-hand, misdirecting the focus of the inquiry from a law allegedly vesting unbridled censorship discretion in a government official toward one imposing a blanket prohibition.
The key to the dissent’s analysis is its “greater-includes-the-lesser” syllogism. But that syllogism is blind to the radically different constitutional harms inherent in the “greater” and “lesser” restrictions. Presumably in the case of an ordinance that completely prohibits a particular manner of expression, the law on its face is both content and viewpoint neutral. In analyzing such a hypothetical ordinance, the Court would apply the well-settled time, place, and manner test. E. g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 530, 535 (1980); Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972). The danger giving rise to the First Amendment inquiry is that the government is silencing or restraining a channel of speech; we ask whether some interest unrelated to speech justifies this silence. To put it another way, the question is whether “the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 116 (1972).
In contrast, a law or policy permitting communication in a certain manner for some but not for others raises the specter of content and viewpoint censorship. This danger is at its zenith when the determination of who may speak and who may not is left to the unbridled discretion of a government official. As demonstrated above, we have often and uniformly held that such statutes or policies impose censorship on the public or the press, and hence are unconstitutional, because without standards governing the exercise of discretion, a government official may decide who may speak and who may not based upon the content of the speech or viewpoint of the speaker. E. g., Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S., at 557; Staub, 355 U. S., at 322. Therefore, even if the government may constitutionally impose content-neutral prohibitions on a particular manner of speech, it may not condition that speech on obtaining a license or permit from a government official in that official’s boundless discretion. It bears repeating that “[i]n the area of freedom of expression it is well established that one has standing to challenge a statute on the ground that it delegates overly broad licensing discretion to an administrative office, whether or not his conduct could be proscribed by a properly drawn statute, and whether or not he applied for a license.” Freedman, 380 U. S., at 56. Fundamentally, then, the dissent’s proposal ignores the different concerns animating our test to determine whether an expressive activity may be banned entirely, and our test to determine whether it may be licensed in an official’s unbridled discretion.
This point is aptly illustrated by a comparison of two of our prior cases: Saia v. New York, 334 U. S. 558 (1948), and Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (1949). In Saia, this Court held that an ordinance prohibiting the use of sound trucks without permission from the Chief of Police was unconstitutional because the licensing official was able to exercise unbridled discretion in his decisionmaking, and therefore could, in a calculated manner, censor certain viewpoints. Just seven months later the Court held in Kovacs that a city could absolutely ban the use of sound trucks. The plurality distinguished Saia precisely on the ground that there the ordinance constituted censorship by allowing some to speak, but not others; in Kovacs the statute barred a particular manner of speech for all. 336 U. S., at 80 (plurality opinion of Reed, J.).
Saia is irreconcilable with the logic the dissent now puts forward. Under the dissent’s novel rule, the Court in Saia should first have determined whether the use of sound trucks could be prohibited completely. If so, as was held in Kovacs, the Court should have rejected the constitutional facial challenge. No “activity protected by the First Amendment” (as the dissent defines it) would have been at issue.
The KovacsISaia comparison provides perhaps the clearest example of the flaw in the dissent’s “gre'atér-includes-the-lesser” reasoning. However, in a host of other First Amendment cases we have expressly or implicitly rejected that logic, and have considered on the merits facial challenges to statutes or policies that embodied discrimination based on the content or viewpoint of expression, or vested officials with open-ended discretion that threatened the same, even where it was assumed that a properly drawn law could have greatly restricted or prohibited the manner of expression or circulation at issue.
For instance, in Mosley we considered an ordinance banning all picketing near a school except labor picketing. The Court declared the law unconstitutional because the ordinance was sensitive to the content of the message. Whether or not the picket could have been prohibited entirely was not dispositive of the Court’s inquiry. 408 U. S., at 96-99. Similarly, in Flower v. United States, 407 U. S. 197 (1972), the Court summarily reversed a conviction based on Flower’s return to a military facility to leaflet after having been ordered to leave once before. It was never doubted that a military commander may generally restrict access to a military facility. But, where the base was for all other purposes treated as part of the surrounding city, the Court refused to allow the commander unbridled discretion to prohibit Flower’s leafletting. In Schacht v. United States, 398 U. S. 58 (1970), the Court struck down a statute permitting actors to wear a military uniform in a theater or motion picture pro-duetion only “if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.” The Court noted that although a total prohibition would be valid, a prohibition sensitive to the viewpoint of speech could not stand. Niemotko provides yet another example of the Court’s rejection of “greater-includes-the-lesser” logic in the First Amendment area. There, a Jehovah’s Witness was convicted of disorderly conduct after speaking in a park without a license. The Court decided that whatever power a city might have to prohibit all religious speech in its parks, it could not allow some but not all religious speech, depending on the exercise of unbridled discretion. 340 U. S., at 272-273. Or, as Justice Frankfurter put it in his concurring opinion, “[a] licensing standard which gives an official authority to censor the content of speech differs toto ccelo from one limited by its terms, or by nondiscriminatory practice, to considerations of public safety and the like.” Id., at 282. Cf. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263 (1981) (public university need not create a public forum, but having done so, it may not restrict access so as to exclude some groups based on the religious content of their speech without constitutional justification); Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 429 U. S. 167 (1976) (School Board need not create a public forum, but having done so, it cannot restrict who may speak based on the content or viewpoint of the speech). To counter this unanimous line of authority, the dissent does not refer to a single case supporting its view that we cannot consider a facial challenge to an ordinance alleged to constitute censorship over constitutionally protected speech merely because the manner used to circulate that speech might be otherwise regulated or prohibited entirely.
Ultimately, then, the dissent’s reasoning must fall of its own weight. As the preceding discussion demonstrates, this Court has long been sensitive to the special dangers inherent in a law placing unbridled discretion directly to license speech, or conduct commonly associated with speech, in the hands of a government official. In contrast, when the government is willing to prohibit a particular manner of speech entirely — the speech it favors along with the speech it disfavors — the risk of governmental censorship is simply not implicated. The “greater” power of outright prohibition raises other concerns, and we have developed tests to consider them. But we see no reason, and the dissent does not advance one, to ignore censorship dangers merely because other, unrelated concerns are satisfied.
The dissent compounds its error by defining an “activity protected by the First Amendment” by the time, place, or (in this case) manner by which the activity is exercised. The actual “activity” at issue here is the circulation of newspapers, which is constitutionally protected. After all, “[l]iberty of circulating is as essential to [freedom of expression] as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the circulation, the publication would be of little value.” Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 733 (1878); Lovell, 303 U. S., at 452.
The dissent’s recharacterization of the issue is not merely semantic; substituting the time, place, or manner for the activity itself allows the dissent to define away a host of activities commonly considered to be protected. The right to demonstrate becomes the right to demonstrate at noise levels proscribed by law; the right to parade becomes the right to parade anywhere in the city 24 hours a day; and the right to circulate newspapers becomes the right to circulate newspapers by way of newsracks placed on public property. Under the dissent’s analysis, ordinances giving the Mayor unbridled discretion over whether to permit loud demonstrations or evening parades would not be vulnerable to a facial challenge, since they would not “requir[e] a license to engage in activity protected by the First Amendment.”'Post, at 777. But see Grayned, 408 U. S., at 113 (implying that a law banning excessively loud demonstrations was not facially invalid because its terms could not invite “subjective or discriminatory enforcement”).
Moreover, we have never countenanced such linguistic prestidigitation, even where a regulation or total prohibition of the “manner” of speech has been upheld. In determining whether expressive conduct is at issue in a censorship case, we do not look solely to the time, place, or manner of expression, but rather to whether the activity in question is commonly associated with expression. For example, in Kovacs, it was never doubted that the First Amendment’s protection of expression was implicated by the ordinance prohibiting sound trucks. The Court simply concluded that the First Amendment was not abridged. 336 U. S., at 87. See also City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789 (1984). So here, the First Amendment is certainly implicated by the city’s circulation restriction; the question we must resolve is whether the First Amendment is abridged.
Ill
Having concluded that the Newspaper may facially challenge the Lakewood ordinance, we turn to the merits. Section 901.181, Codified Ordinances, City of Lakewood, provides: “The Mayor shall either deny the application [for a permit], stating the reasons for such denial or grant said permit subject to the following terms....” Section 901.181 (c) sets out some of those terms, including: “(7) such other terms and conditions deemed necessary and reasonable by the Mayor.” It is apparent that the face of the ordinance itself contains no explicit limits on the mayor’s discretion. Indeed, nothing in the law as written requires the mayor to do more than make the statement “it is not in the public interest” when denying a permit application. Similarly, the mayor could grant the application, but require the newsrack to be placed in an inaccessible location without providing any explanation whatever. To allow these illusory “constraints” to constitute the standards necessary to bound a licensor’s discretion renders the guarantee against censorship little more than a high-sounding ideal. See Shuttlesworth, 394 U. S., at 150-151.
The city asks us to presume that the mayor will deny a permit application only for reasons related to the health, safety, or welfare of Lakewood citizens, and that additional terms and conditions will be imposed only for similar reasons. This presumes the mayor will act in good faith and adhere to standards absent from the ordinance’s face. But this is the very presumption that the doctrine forbidding unbridled discretion disallows. E. g., Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965). The doctrine requires that the limits the city claims are implicit in its law be made explicit by textual incorporation, binding judicial or administrative construction, or well-established practice. Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395 (1953); Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290 (1951). This Court will not write nonbinding limits into a' silent state statute.
Although the dissent disclaims a desire to pass upon the actual ordinance at issue, it apparently cannot resist making a few comments in this regard. Post, at 793, n. 13. First, it asserts that the ordinance’s requirement that the mayor state his reasons for denying a permit distinguishes this case from other licensing cases. However, the mayor’s statement need not be made with any degree of specificity, nor are there any limits as to what reasons he may give. Such a minimal requirement cannot provide the standards necessary to insure constitutional decisionmaking, nor will it, of necessity, provide a solid foundation for eventual judicial review.
The dissent is also comforted by the availability of judicial review. However, that review comes only after the mayor and the City Council have denied the permit. Nowhere in the ordinance is either body required to act with reasonable dispatch. Rather, an application could languish indefinitely before the Council, with the Newspaper’s only judicial remedy being a petition for mandamus. Cf. Freedman, supra, at 54-55, 59. Even if judicial review were relatively speedy, such review cannot substitute for concrete standards to guide the decisionmaker’s discretion. E. g., Saia, 334 U. S., at 560, and supra, at 759-760.
Finally, the dissent attempts to distinguish newsrack permits from parade permits in that the latter are often given for a particular event or time, whereas the former supposedly have no urgency. This overstates the proposition. We agree that in some cases there is exceptional force to the argument that a permit delayed is a permit denied. However, we cannot agree that newspaper publishers can wait indefinitely for a permit only because there will always be news to report. News is not fungible. Some stories may be particularly well covered by certain publications, providing that newspaper with a unique opportunity to develop readership. In order to benefit from that event, a paper needs public access at a particular time; eventual access would come “too little and too late.” Freedman, supra, at 57. The Plain Dealer has been willing to forgo this benefit for four years in order to bring and litigate this lawsuit. However, smaller publications may not be willing or able to make the same sacrifice.
IV
We hold those portions of the Lakewood ordinance giving the mayor unfettered discretion to deny a permit application and unbounded authority to condition the permit on any additional terms he deems “necessary and reasonable,” to be unconstitutional. We need not resolve the remaining questions presented for review, as our conclusion regarding mayoral discretion will alone sustain the Court of Appeals’ judgment if these portions of the ordinance are not severable from the remainder. Severability of a local ordinance is a question of state law, and is therefore best resolved below. See Mayflower Farms, Inc. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U. S. 266, 274 (1936). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the Court of Appeals to decide whether the provisions of the ordinance we have declared unconstitutional are severable, and to take further action consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The other ordinance deals with all other structures and is unchallenged. § 901.18, Codified Ordinances, City of Lakewood (1984).
The portions of the ordinance relevant to this appeal are as follows:
“901.181 NEWSPAPER DISPENSING DEVICES; PERMIT AND APPLICATION
“Applications may be made to and on forms approved by the Mayor for rental permits allowing the installation of newspaper dispensing devices on public property along the streets and thoroughfares within the City respecting newspapers having general circulation throughout the City.
“The Mayor shall either deny the application, stating the reasons for such denial or grant said permit subject to the following terms:
“(a)... The design of [newsracks] shall be subject to approval by the Architectural Board of Review.
“(b) Newspaper dispensing devices shall not be placed in the residential use districts of the City....
“(c) The rental permit shall be granted upon the following conditions:
“(5) the permittee shall save and hold the City of Lakewood harmless from any and all liability for any reason whatsoever occasioned upon the installation and use of each newspaper dispensing device ánd shall furnish, at permittee’s expense, such public liability insurance as will protect permittee and the City from all claims for damage to property or bodily injury, including death, which may arise from the operation under the permit or in connection therewith and such policy... shall be in an amount not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000)....
“(6) rental permits shall be for a term of one year and shall not be assignable; and
“(7) such other terms and conditions deemed necessary and reasonable by the Mayor.
“(e) A person aggrieved by a decision of the Mayor in refusing to grant or revoking a rental permit shall have the right to appeal to Council....”
The ordinance is quoted in full in the opinion below. 794 F. 2d 1139, 1141, n. 1 (CA6 1986).
The city asserts that it will apply the indemnity and insurance requirements to all structures on public property except as to the public utilities (telephone booths, utility poles, and bus shelters) already extant on public property when §901.181 was enacted.
The court decided that the absolute ban on residential newsrack placements was both constitutional and severable. Its decision in that respect is not challenged here.
Of course, the degree of First Amendment protection is not diminished merely because the newspaper or speech is sold rather than given away. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U. S. 376, 385 (1973).
In general, compare Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 531 (1914) (coal mining), Yazoe & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U. S. 217 (1912) (railroad), and New York ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr, 199 U. S. 552 (1905) (dairy business), all requiring challenges “as applied,” with Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U. S., at 964-968 (charity solicitation), Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell, 425 U. S. 610 (1976) (registration requirement for political candidate or charity
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Makshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue presented by this case is whether § 4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 15, authorizes a State to sue for damages for an injury to its economy allegedly attributable to a violation of the antitrust laws of the United States. We hold that it does not.
I. Procedural History
Hawaii filed its initial complaint on April 1, 1968, against three of the four respondents. On May 24, 1968, and again on August 19, 1968, Hawaii filed amended complaints. The third amended complaint, filed on September 6, 1968, raised for the first time the issue presented herein. That complaint named all four respondents as defendants and charged them with violating the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. § 1, in the following ways: by entering into unlawful contracts; by conspiring and combining to restrain trade and commerce in the sale, marketing, and distribution of refined petroleum products; and by attempting to monopolize and actually monopolizing said trade and commerce. The State sought to recover damages in three distinct capacities: in its proprietary capacity for overcharges for petroleum products sold to the State itself (first count); as parens patriae for similar overcharges paid by the citizens of the State (second count); and as the representative of the class of all purchasers in Hawaii for identical overcharges (third count).
The second count read, in relevant part:
“18. The above-named plaintiff [Hawaii], [acts] in its capacity as parens patriae, and/or as trustee for the use of its citizens who purchased refined petroleum products, from any defendant or co-conspirator herein ....
“19. The unlawful contracts, combination, conspiracy in restraint of trade, unlawful combination and conspiracy to monopolize, and monopolization have resulted in the plaintiff, . . . and in its citizens, paying more for refined petroleum products than would have been paid in a freely operating competitive market. Plaintiff has not yet ascertained the precise extent of said damage to itself and its citizens, however, when said amount has been ascertained, plaintiff will ask leave of Court to insert said sum herein.”
Very similar language appeared in the class-action count. In all three counts, the State sought both injunctive and monetary relief.
After each of the respondents moved to dismiss the second and third counts of the complaint, the District Court held a hearing to determine the propriety of the State’s suing on behalf of its citizens. With respect to count two, the court held that Hawaii “has not even alleged an interest in its citizens’ claims, much less interest of its own aside from the State’s proprietary rights,” and granted the motions to dismiss. Viewing the class action as being “overlapping, parallel and/or alternative to” the parens patriae claim, the court dismissed the third count as well.
Hawaii filed its fourth amended complaint on February 27, 1969. This is the complaint with which we are concerned. Count one contains a reiteration of Hawaii’s claim that in its proprietary capacity the State paid an excessive price for the petroleum products that it purchased from respondents. Count two states a new parens patriae claim, and count three is drawn as a class action.
The parens patriae claim is stated in the following manner:
“19. The State of Hawaii, acting through its Attorney General, brings this action by virtue of its duty to protect the general welfare of the State and its citizens, acting herein as parens patriae, trustee, guardian and representative of its citizens, to recover damages for, and secure injunctive relief against, the violations of the antitrust laws hereinbefore alleged.
“20. The unlawful contracts, combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade, unlawful combination and conspiracy to monopolize and monopolization, hereinbefore alleged, have injured and adversely affected the economy and prosperity of the State of Hawaii in, among others, the following ways:
“(a) revenues of its citizens have been wrongfully extracted from the State of Hawaii;
“(b) taxes affecting the citizens and commercial entities have been increased to affect such losses of revenues and income;
“(c) opportunity in manufacturing, shipping and commerce have [sic] been restricted and curtailed;
“(d) the full and complete utilization of the natural wealth of the State has been prevented;
“(e) the high cost of manufacture in Hawaii has precluded goods made there from equal competitive access with those of other States to the national market;
“(f) measures taken by the State to promote the general progress and welfare of its people have been frustrated;
“(g) the Hawaii economy has been held in a state of arrested development.
“21. Plaintiff has not yet ascertained the precise extent of said damage to itself and its citizens; however, when said amount has been ascertained, plaintiff will ask leave of Court to insert said sum herein.”
The class-action count is similar to that in the third amended complaint. As in the previous complaint, Hawaii seeks both injunctive and monetary relief in each count.
Respondents moved to dismiss the second and third counts, and hearing was again had in the District Court. The class action was dismissed by the court on the ground that “under the circumstances . . . , the class action based upon the injury to every individual purchaser of gasoline in the State, ... in the context of the pleadings, would be unmanageable.” In a rather extensive opinion, the court examined the law that has developed concerning suits by a State as parens patriae and denied the motions to dismiss the second count. 301 F. Supp. 982 (1969). Recognizing that the state of the law was unclear, the District Court certified its decision denying the motions to dismiss for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b). On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court and directed that the second count of the complaint be dismissed. 431 F. 2d 1282 (1970). Certiorari was granted so that we might review this decision. 401 U. S. 936 (1971).
II. The State as Parens Patriae
The concept of parens patriae is derived from the English constitutional system. As the system developed from its feudal beginnings, the King retained certain duties and powers, which were referred to as the “royal prerogative.” Malina & Blechman, Parens Patriae Suits for Treble Damages Under the Antitrust Laws, 65 Nw. U. L. Rev. 193, 197 (1970) (hereinafter Malina & Blech-man) ; State Protection of its Economy and Environment: Parens Patriae Suits for Damages, 6 Col. J. L. & Soc. Prob. 411, 412 (1970) (hereinafter State Protection). These powers and duties were said to be exercised by the King in his capacity as “father of the country.” Traditionally, the term was used to refer to the King’s power as guardian of persons under legal disabilities to act for themselves. For example, Blackstone refers to the sovereign or his representative as “the general guardian of all infants, idiots, and lunatics,” and as the superintendent of “all charitable uses in the kingdom.” In the United States, the “royal prerogative” and the “parens patriae” function of the King passed to the States.
The nature of the parens patriae suit has been greatly expanded in the United States beyond that which existed in England. This expansion was first evidenced in Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1 (1900), a case in which the State of Louisiana brought suit to enjoin officials of the State of Texas from so administering the Texas quarantine regulations as to prevent Louisiana merchants from sending goods into Texas. This Court recognized that Louisiana was attempting to sue, not because of any particular injury to a business of the State, but as parens patriae for all her citizens. 176 U. S., at 19. While the Court found that parens patriae could not properly be invoked in that case, the propriety and utility of parens patriae suits were clearly recognized.
This Court’s acceptance of the notion of parens patriae suits in Louisiana v. Texas was followed in a series of cases: Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208 (1901) (holding that Missouri was permitted to sue Illinois and a Chicago sanitation district on behalf of Missouri citizens to enjoin the discharge of sewage into the Mississippi River); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46 (1907) (holding that Kansas was permitted to sue as parens patriae to enjoin the diversion of water from an interstate stream); Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230 (1907) (holding that Georgia was entitled to sue to enjoin fumes from a copper plant across the state border from injuring land in five Georgia counties); New York v. New Jersey, 256 U. S. 296 (1921) (holding that New York could sue to enjoin the discharge of sewage into the New York harbor); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553 (1923) (holding that Pennsylvania might sue to enjoin restraints on the commercial flow of natural gas); and North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U. S. 365 (1923) (holding that Minnesota could sue to enjoin changes in drainage which increase the flow of water in an interstate stream).
These cases establish the right of a State to sue as parens patriae to prevent or repair harm to its “quasi-sovereign” interests. They deal primarily with original suits brought directly in this Court pursuant to Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution under common-law rights of action. The question in this case is not whether Hawaii may maintain its lawsuit on behalf of its citizens, but rather whether the injury for which it seeks to recover is compensable under § 4 of the Clayton Act. Hence, Hawaii’s claim cannot be resolved simply by reference to any general principles governing parens patriae actions.
The only time this Court has ever faced the question of what relief, if any, the antitrust laws offer a State suing as parens patriae was in Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S. 439 (1945), the case relied on most heavily by the parties herein. In that case, Georgia sought to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court by filing an amended bill of complaint against 20 railroads, alleging, in essence, that the railroads had conspired to restrain trade and to fix prices in a manner that would favor shippers in other States (particularly Northern States) to the detriment of Georgia shippers.
Like this suit, Georgia arose under the federal antitrust laws. It is plain from the face of the complaint that “[t]he prayer [was] for damages and for in-junctive relief.” 324 U. S., at 445. See id., at 446-447, 450-451. Georgia claimed that the conspiracy had severely damaged its economy and sought to recover damages on behalf of its citizens.
The Court upheld Georgia’s claim as parens patriae with respect to injunctive relief, but had no occasion to consider whether the antitrust laws also authorized damages for an injury to the State’s economy, since approval of the challenged rates by the Interstate Commerce Commission barred a damage recovery on the ground that such a remedy would have given Georgia shippers an unfair advantage over shippers from other States. See Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 260 U. S. 156 (1922). Nowhere in Georgia did the Court address itself to the question whether § 4 of the Clayton Act authorizes damages for an injury to the general economy of a State. Thus, the question presented here is open.
III. Hawaii and the Antitrust Laws
Hawaii grounds its claim for treble damages in § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 15, which reads:
“Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
This section is notably different from § 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 26, which provides for injunctive relief:
“Any person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction over the parties, against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws . . . when and under the same conditions and principles as injunc-tive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity, under the rules governing such proceedings . . . .”
Hawaii plainly qualifies as a person under both sections of the statute, whether it sues in its proprietary capacity or as parens patriae. Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S., at 447. But the critical question is whether the injury asserted by Hawaii in its parens patriae count is an injury to its “business or property.”
The legislative history of the Sherman and Clayton Acts is not very instructive as to why Congress included the “business or property” requirement in § 4, but not in § 16. The most likely explanation lies in the essential differences between the two remedies.
While the United States Government, the governments of each State, and any individual threatened with injury by an antitrust violation may all sue for injunctive relief against violations of the antitrust laws, and while they may theoretically do so simultaneously against the same persons for the same violations, the fact is that one injunction is as effective as 100, and, concomitantly, that 100 injunctions are no more effective than one. This case illustrates the point well. The parties are in virtual agreement that whether or not Hawaii can sue for injunctive relief as parens patriae is of little consequence so long as it can seek the same relief in its proprietary capacity. While some theoretical differences may exist with respect to the parties capable of enforcing a parens patriae injunction as opposed to one secured by a State in its proprietary capacity, these differences are not crucial to the defendant in an antitrust case.
The position of a defendant faced with numerous claims for damages is much different. If the defendant is sued by 100 different persons or by one person with 100 separate but cumulative claims, and each claim is for damages, the potential liability is obviously far greater than if only one of those persons sued on only one claim. Thus, there is a striking contrast between the potential impact of suits for injunctive relief and suits for damages.
Every violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress. See Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 4 (1958). This system depends on strong competition for its health and vigor, and strong competition depends, in turn, on compliance with antitrust legislation. In enacting these laws, Congress had many means at its disposal to penalize violators. It could have, for example, required violators to compensate federal, state, and local governments for the estimated damage to their respective economies caused by the violations. But, this remedy was not selected. Instead, Congress chose to permit all persons to sue to recover three times their actual damages every time they were injured in their business or property by an antitrust violation. By offering potential litigants the prospect of a recovery in three times the amount of their damages, Congress encouraged these persons to serve as “private attorneys general.” See, e. g., Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U. S. 100, 130-131 (1969); Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U. S. 134, 147 (1968) (Fortas, J., concurring in result).
Thus, § 4 permits Hawaii to . sue in its proprietary capacity for three times the damages it has suffered from respondents’ alleged antitrust violations. The section gives the same right to every citizen of Hawaii with respect to any damage to business or property. Were we, in addition, to hold that Congress authorized the State to recover damages for injury to its general economy, we would open the door to duplicative recoveries.
A large and ultimately indeterminable part of the injury to the “general economy,” as it is measured by economists, is no more than a reflection of injuries to the “business or property” of consumers, for which they may recover themselves under § 4. Even the most lengthy and expensive trial could not, in the final analysis, cope with the problems of double recovery inherent in allowing damages for harm both to the economic interests of individuals and for the quasi-sovereign interests of the State. At the very least, if the latter type of injury is to be compensable under the antitrust laws, we should insist upon a clear expression of a congressional purpose to make it so, and no such expression is to be found in § 4 of the Clayton Act.
Like the lower courts that have considered the meaning of the words “business or property,” we conclude that they refer to commercial interests or enterprises. See, e. g., Roseland v. Phister Mfg. Co., 125 F. 2d 417 (CA7 1942); Hamman v. United States, 267 F. Supp. 420 (Mont. 1967), appeal dismissed, 399 F. 2d 673 (CA9 1968); Broadcasters, Inc. v. Morristown Broadcasting Corp., 185 F. Supp. 641 (NJ 1960). When the State seeks damages for injuries to its commercial interests, it may sue under § 4. But where, as here, the State seeks damages for other injuries, it is not properly within the Clayton Act.
Support for this reading of § 4 is found in the legislative history of 15 U. S. C. § 15a, which is the only provision authorizing recovery in damages by the United States, and which limits that recovery to damages to “business or property.” The legislative history of that provision makes it quite plain that the United States was authorized to recover, not for general injury to the national economy or to the Government’s ability to carry out its functions, but only for those injuries suffered in its capacity as a consumer of goods and services.
“The United States is, of course, amply equipped with the criminal and civil process with which to enforce the antitrust laws. The proposed legislation, quite properly, treats the United States solely as a buyer of goods and permits the recovery of the actual damages suffered.” S. Rep. No. 619, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1955).
See also H. R. Rep. No. 422, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-5 (1955). In light of the language used as well as the legislative history of 15 U. S. C. § 15a, it is manifest that the United States cannot recover for economic injuries to its sovereign interests, as opposed to its proprietary functions. And the conclusion is nearly inescapable that § 4, which uses identical language, does not authorize recovery for economic injuries to the sovereign interests of a State.
We note in passing the State’s claim that the costs and other burdens of protracted litigation render private citizens impotent to bring treble-damage actions, and thus that denying Hawaii the right to sue for injury to her quasi-sovereign interests will allow antitrust violations to go virtually unremedied. Private citizens are not as powerless, however, as the State suggests.
Congress has given private citizens rights of action for injunctive relief and damages for antitrust violations without regard to the amount in controversy. 28 U. S. C. § 1337; 15 U. S. C. § 15. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for class actions that may enhance the efficacy of private actions by permitting citizens to combine their limited resources to achieve a more powerful litigation posture. The District Court dismissed Hawaii’s class action only because it was unwieldy; it did not hold that a State could never bring a class action on behalf of some or all of its consumer citizens. Respondents, in moving to dismiss count three of the fourth amended complaint, in which the State sought to bring such an action, virtually conceded that class actions might be appropriate under certain circumstances. The fact that a successful antitrust suit for damages recovers not only the costs of the litigation, but also attorney’s fees, should provide no scarcity of members of the Bar to aid prospective plaintiffs in bringing these suits.
Parens patriae actions may, in theory, be related to class actions, but the latter are definitely preferable in the antitrust area. Rule 23 provides specific rules for delineating the appropriate plaintiff-class, establishes who is bound by the action, and effectively prevents duplica-tive recoveries.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated above.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Chevron Asphalt Co. was not named as a defendant in the initial complaint. As pointed out in the text, infra, the company was named' as a defendant in the third and fourth amended complaints which raise the question presented to the Court.
In the third amended complaint, the State abandoned a claim made in the initial complaint that the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. § 13 (a), had been violated. This claim has not been resurrected in any of the later stages of the proceedings.
The opinion of the court is unreported, but is contained in App. 51-58.
Id., at 58.
Reporter’s Tr. 154 (May 29, 1969).
The District Court offered to certify its dismissal of Hawaii’s class-action count, but Hawaii indicated its intention not to appeal the ruling. Since the ruling was not appealed it is not before the Court for review.
Although the Court of Appeals directed that the count be dismissed in its entirety, the parties have not suggested that its decision foreclosed any relief the State might obtain by way of injunction.
Malina & Blechman, at 197; State Protection, at 412.
State Protection, at 412.
3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *47.
Ibid.
Article III, § 2, of the Constitution confers original jurisdiction upon this Court over suits between States or by one State against a citizen of another State. In order to properly invoke this jurisdiction, the State must bring an action on its own behalf and not on behalf of particular citizens. See, e. g., Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1 (1900); New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76 (1883); Oklahoma v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 220 U. S. 277 (1911)., An action brought by one State against another violates the! Eleventh Amendment if the plaintiff State is actually suing to re-' cover for injuries to designated individuals. See, e. g., New Hampshire v. Louisiana, supra; North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U. S. 365; 376 (1923).
It is evident from the bill of complaint that Georgia sought to sue in four slightly different capacities: its sovereign capacity (first count); as a quasi-sovereign (second count); its proprietary capacity (third count); and as protector of a general class of its citizens (fourth count). Damages were sought in each count, although treble damages were sought only on the last count.
It is true, as Mr. Justice BreNNAn suggests, that an injury to the State in its proprietary capacity, as alleged in count one of the complaint, affects the citizens in much the same way as an injury of the sort claimed by Hawaii here. Each has the effect of increasing taxes, or reducing government services, or both. But this does not mean that the two kinds of injuries are identical in nature. Where the injury to the State occurs in its capacity as a consumer in the marketplace, through a “payment of money wrongfully induced,” Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta, 203 U. S. 390, 396 (1906), damages are established by the amount of the overcharge. Under § 4, courts will not go beyond the fact of this injury to determine whether the victim of the overcharge has partially recouped its loss in some other way, even though a State, for example, may ultimately recoup some part of the overcharge through increased taxes paid by the seller. See Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U. S. 481, 489 (1968). Measurement of an injury to the general economy, on the other hand, necessarily involves an examination of the impact of a restraint of trade upon every variable that affects the State’s economic health — a task extremely difficult, “in the real economic world rather than an economist’s hypothetical model.” Id., at 493.
The lower courts have been virtually unanimous in concluding that Congress did not intend the antitrust laws to provide a remedy in damages for all injuries that might conceivably be traced to an antitrust violation. See, e. g., Miley v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 148 F. Supp. 299, 303 (Mass.), aff’d, 242 F. 2d 758 (CA1), cert. denied, 355 U. S. 828 (1957); Billy Baxter, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 431 F. 2d 183 (CA2 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 923 (1971); Kauffman v. Dreyfus Fund, Inc., 434 F. 2d 727, 732-734 (CA3 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 974 (1971); South Carolina Council v. Newton, 360 F. 2d 414, 419 (CA4), cert. denied, 385 U. S. 934 (1966); Dailey v. Quality School Plan, Inc., 380 F. 2d 484 (CA5 1967); Volasco Products Co. v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co., 308 F. 2d 383, 395 (CA6 1962), cert. denied, 372 U. S. 907 (1963); Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 315 F. 2d 564, 566-567 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. Illinois v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 375 U. S. 834 (1963); Sanitary Milk Producers v. Bergjans Farm Dairy, Inc., 368 F. 2d 679, 688-689 (CA8 1966); Hoopes v. Union Oil Co., 374 F. 2d 480, 485 (CA9 1967); Nationwide Auto App. Serv. v. Association of C. & S. Co., 382 F. 2d 925, 928-929 (CA10 1967).
“Whenever the United States is hereafter injured in its business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws it may sue therefor . . . , and shall recover actual damages by it sustained and the cost of suit.” 69 Stat. 282, 15 U. S. C. § 15a.
This section was enacted in 1955 following the decision in United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600 (1941), which held that the United States was not a “person” within the meaning of § 7 of the Sherman Act (the predecessor of § 4 of the Clayton Act). Recovery is limited to actual rather than treble damages because Congress reasoned that the United States, unlike a private party, needed no extraordinary incentive to bring antitrust suits. H. R. Rep. No. 422, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1955).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the District Court erred in dismissing, with prejudice, a complaint in a civil action as to a plaintiff that had failed to comply fully with a pretrial production order.
This issue comes to us in the context of an intricate litigation. Section 5 (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 415, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 5 (b), sets forth the conditions under which the United States during a period of war or national emergency may seize “. . . any property or interest of any foreign country or national . . . Acting under this section, the Alien Property Custodian during World War II assumed control of assets which were found by the Custodian to be “owned by or held for the benefit of” I. G. Farbenindus-trie, a German firm and a then enemy national. These assets, valued at more than $100,000,000, consisted of cash in American banks and approximately 90% of the capital stock of General Aniline & Film Corporation, a Delaware corporation. In 1948 petitioner, a Swiss holding company also known as I. G. Chemie or Interhandel, brought suit under § 9 (a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 419, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 9 (a), against the Attorney General, as successor to the Alien Property Custodian, and the Treasurer of the United States, to recover these assets. This section authorizes recovery of seized assets by “[a]ny person not an enemy or ally of enemy” to the extent of such person’s interest in the assets. Petitioner claimed that it had owned the General Aniline stock and cash at the time of vesting and hence, as the national of a neutral power, was entitled under § 9 (a) to recovery.
The Government both challenged petitioner’s claim of ownership and asserted that in any event petitioner was an “enemy” within the meaning of the Act since it was intimately connected with I. G. Farben and hence was affected with “enemy taint” despite its “neutral” incorporation. See Uebersee Finanz-Korp. v. McGrath, 343 U. S. 205. More particularly, the Government alleged that from the time of its incorporation in 1928, petitioner had conspired with I. G. Farben, H. Sturzenegger & Cie, a Swiss banking firm, and others “[t]o conceal, camouflage and cloak the ownership, control and domination by I. G. Farben of properties and interests located in countries, including the United States, other than Germany, in order to avoid seizure and confiscation in the event of war between such countries and Germany.”
At an early stage of the litigation the Government moved under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order requiring petitioner to make available for inspection and copying a large number of the banking records of Sturzenegger & Cie. Rule 34, in conjunction with Rule 26 (b), provides that upon a motion “showing good cause therefor,” a court may order a party to produce for inspection nonprivileged documents relevant to the subject matter of pending litigation “. . . which are in his possession, custody, or control . . . .” In support of its motion the Government alleged that the records sought were relevant to showing the true ownership of the General Aniline stock and that they were within petitioner’s control because petitioner and Sturzenegger were substantially identical. Petitioner did not dispute the general relevancy of the Sturzenegger documents but denied that it controlled them. The District Court granted the Government’s motion, holding, among other things, that petitioner’s “control” over the records had been prima facie established.
Thereafter followed a number of motions by petitioner , to be relieved of production on the ground that disclosure of the required bank records would violate Swiss penal laws and consequently might lead to imposition of criminal sanctions, including fine and imprisonment, on those responsible for disclosure. The Government in turn moved under Rule 37 (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint because of petitioner’s noncompliance with the production order. During this period the Swiss Federal Attorney, deeming that disclosure of these records in accordance with the production order would constitute a violation of Article 273 of the Swiss Penal Code, prohibiting economic espionage, and Article 47 of the Swiss Bank Law, relating to secrecy of banking records, “confiscated” the Sturzenegger records. This “confiscation” left possession of the records in Sturzenegger and amounted to an interdiction on Sturzenegger’s transmission of the records to third persons. The upshot of all this was that the District Court, before finally ruling on petitioner’s motion for relief from the production order and on the Government’s motion to dismiss the complaint, referred the matter to a Special Master for findings as to the nature of the Swiss laws claimed by petitioner to block production and as to petitioner’s good faith in seeking to achieve compliance with the court’s order.
The Report of the Master bears importantly on our disposition of this case. It concluded that the Swiss Government had acted in accordance with its own established doctrines in exercising preventive police power by constructive seizure of the Sturzenegger records, and found that there was “. . . no proof, or any evidence at all of collusion between plaintiff and the Swiss Government in the seizure of the papers herein.” Noting that the burden was on petitioner to show good faith in its efforts to comply with the production order, and taking as the test of good faith whether petitioner had attempted all which a reasonable man would have undertaken in the circumstances to comply with the order, the Master found that “. . . the plaintiff has sustained the burden of proof placed upon it and has shown good faith in its efforts [to comply with the production order] in accordance with the foregoing test.”
These findings of the Master were confirmed by the District Court. Nevertheless the court, in February 1953, granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the complaint and filed an opinion wherein it concluded that: (1) apart from considerations of Swiss law petitioner had control over the Sturzenegger records; (2) such records might prove to be crucial in the outcome of this litigation; (3) Swiss law did not furnish an adequate excuse for petitioner’s failure to comply with the production order, since petitioner could not invoke foreign laws to justify disobedience to orders entered under the laws of the forum; and (4) that the court in these circumstances had power under Rule 37 (b) (2), as well as inherent power, to dismiss the complaint. 111 F. Supp. 435. However, in view of statements by the Swiss Government, following petitioner’s intercession, that certain records not deemed to violate the Swiss laws would be released, and in view of efforts by petitioner to secure waivers from those persons banking with the Sturzenegger firm who were protected by the Swiss secrecy laws, and hence whose waivers might lead the Swiss Government to permit production, the court suspended the effective date of its dismissal order for a limited period in order to permit petitioner to continue efforts to obtain waivers and Swiss consent for production.
By October 1953, some 63,000 documents had been released by this process and tendered the Government for inspection. None of the books of account of Sturzeneg-ger were submitted, though petitioner was prepared to offer plans to the Swiss Government which here too might have permitted at least partial compliance. However, since full production appeared impossible, the District Court in November 1953 entered a final dismissal order. This order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which accepted the findings of the District Court as to the relevancy of the documents, control of them by petitioner, and petitioner’s good-faith efforts to comply with the production order. The court found it unnecessary to decide whether Rule 37 authorized dismissal under these circumstances since it ruled that the District Court was empowered to dismiss both by Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and under its own “inherent power.” It did, however, modify the dismissal order to allow petitioner an additional six months in which to continue its efforts. 96 U. S. App. D. C. 232, 225 F. 2d 532. We denied certiorari. 350 U. S. 937.
During this further period of grace, additional documents, with the consent of the Swiss Government and through waivers, were released and tendered for inspection, so that by July of 1956, over 190,000 documents had been procured. Record books of Sturzenegger were offered for examination in Switzerland, subject to the expected approval of the Swiss Government, to the extent that material within them was covered by waivers. Finally, petitioner presented the District Court with a plan, already approved by the Swiss Government, which was designed to achieve maximum compliance with the production order: A “neutral” expert, who might be an American, would be appointed as investigator with the consent of the parties, District Court, and Swiss authorities. After inspection of the Sturzenegger files, this investigator would submit a report to the parties identifying documents, without violating secrecy regulations, which he deemed to be relevant to the litigation. Petitioner could then seek to obtain further waivers or secure such documents by letters rogatory or arbitration proceedings in Swiss courts.
The District Court, however, refused to entertain this plan or to inspect the documents tendered in order to determine whether there had been substantial compliance with the production order. It directed final dismissal of the action. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but at the same time observed: “That [petitioner] and its counsel patiently and diligently sought to achieve compliance . . . is not to be doubted.” 100 U. S. App. D. C. 148, 149, 243 F. 2d 254, 255. Because this decision raised important questions as to the proper application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we granted certiorari. 355 U. S. 812.
I.
We consider first petitioner’s contention that the District Court erred in issuing the production order because the requirement of Rule 34, that a party ordered to produce documents must be in “control” of them, was not here satisfied. Without intimating any view upon the merits of the litigation, we accept as amply supported by the evidence the findings of the two courts below that, apart from the effect of Swiss law, the Sturzenegger documents are within petitioner’s control. The question then becomes: Do the interdictions of Swiss law bar a conclusion that petitioner had “control” of these documents within the meaning of Rule 34?
We approach this question in light of the findings below that the Swiss penal laws did in fact limit petitioner’s ability to satisfy the production order because of the criminal sanctions to which those producing the records would have been exposed. Still we do not view this situation as fully analogous to one where documents required by a production order have ceased to exist or have been taken into the actual possession of a third person not controlled by the party ordered to produce, and without that party’s complicity. The “confiscation” of these records by the Swiss authorities adds nothing to the dimensions of the problem under consideration, for possession of the records stayed where it was and the possibility of criminal prosecution for disclosure was of course present before the confiscation order was issued.
In its broader scope, the problem before us requires consideration of the policies underlying the Trading with the Enemy Act. If petitioner can prove its record title to General Aniline stock, it certainly is open to the Government to show that petitioner itself is the captive of interests whose direct ownership would bar recovery. This possibility of enemy taint of nationals of neutral powers, particularly of holding companies with intricate financial structures, which asserted rights to American assets was of deep concern to the Congress when it broadened the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1941 “. . . to reach enemy interests which masqueraded under those innocent fronts.” Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp., 332 U. S. 480, 485. See Administration of the Wartime Financial and Property Controls of the United States Government, Treasury Department (1942), pp. 29-30; H. R. Rep. No. 2398, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 3.
In view of these considerations, to hold broadly that petitioner’s failure to produce the Sturzenegger records because of fear of punishment under the laws of its sovereign precludes a court from finding that petitioner had “control” over them, and thereby from ordering their production, would undermine congressional policies made explicit in the 1941 amendments, and invite efforts to place ownership of American assets in persons or firms whose sovereign assures secrecy of records. The District Court here concluded that the Sturzenegger records might have a vital influence upon this litigation insofar as they shed light upon petitioner’s confused background. Petitioner is in a most advantageous position to plead with its own sovereign for relaxation of penal laws or for adoption of plans which will at the least achieve a significant measure of compliance with the production order, and indeed to that end it has already made significant progress. United States courts should be free to require claimants of seized assets who face legal obstacles under the laws of their own countries to make all such efforts to the maximum of their ability where the requested records promise to bear out or dispel any doubt the Government may introduce as to true ownership of the assets.
We do not say that this ruling would apply to every situation where a party is restricted by law from producing documents over which it is otherwise shown to have control. Rule 34 is sufficiently flexible to be adapted to the exigencies of particular litigation. The propriety of the use to which it is put depends upon the circumstances of a given case, and we hold only that accommodation of the Rule in this instance to the policies underlying the Trading with the Enemy Act justified the action of the District Court in issuing this production order.
II.
We consider next the source of the authority of a District Court to dismiss a complaint for failure of a plaintiff to comply with a production order. The District Court found power to dismiss under Rule 37 (b) (2) (iii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as in the general equity powers of a federal court. The Court of Appeals chose not to rely upon Rule 37, but rested such power on Rule 41 (b) and on the District Court’s inherent power.
Rule 37 describes the consequences of a refusal to make discovery. Subsection (b), which is entitled “Failure to Comply With Order,” provides in pertinent part:
“(2) ... If any party . . . refuses to obey . . . an order made under Rule 34 to produce any document or other thing for inspection . . . , the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others the following:
“(iii) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof ... , or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof . . . .”
Rule 41 (b) is concerned with involuntary dismissals and reads in part: “For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him.”
In our opinion, whether a court has power to dismiss a complaint because of noncompliance with a production order depends exclusively upon Rule .37, which addresses itself with particularity to the consequences of a failure to make discovery by listing a variety of remedies which a court may employ as well as by authorizing any order which is “just.” There is no need to resort to Rule 41 (b), which appears in that part of the Rules concerned with trials and which lacks such specific references to discovery. Further, that Rule is on its face appropriate only as a defendant’s remedy, while Rule 37 provides more expansive coverage by comprehending disobedience of production orders by any party. Reliance upon Rule 41, which cannot easily be interpreted to afford a court more expansive powers than does Rule 37, or upon “inherent power,” can only obscure analysis of the problem before us. See generally Rosenberg, Sanctions to Effectuate Pretrial Discovery, 58 Col. L. Rev. 480.
It may be that the Court of Appeals invoked Rule 41 (b), which uses the word “failure,” and hesitated to draw upon Rule 37 (b) because of doubt that Rule 37 would cover this situation since it applies only where a party “refuses to obey.” (Italics added.) Petitioner has urged that the word “refuses” implies willfulness and that it simply failed and did not refuse to obey since it was not in willful disobedience. But this argument turns on too fine a literalism and unduly accents certain distinctions found in the language of the various subsections of Rule 37. Indeed subsection (b), as noted above, is itself entitled “Failure to Comply With Order.” (Italics added.) For purposes of subdivision (b) (2) of Rule 37, we think that a party “refuses to obey” simply by failing to comply with an order. So construed the Rule allows a court all the flexibility it might need in framing an order appropriate to a particular situation. Whatever its reasons, petitioner did not comply with the production order. Such reasons, and the willfulness or good faith of petitioner, can hardly affect the fact of noncompliance and are relevant only to the path which the District Court might follow in dealing with petitioner’s failure to comply.
III.
We turn to the remaining question, whether the District Court properly exercised its powers under Rule 37 (b) by dismissing this complaint despite the findings that petitioner had not been in collusion with the Swiss authorities to block inspection of the Sturzenegger records, and had in good faith made diligent efforts to execute the production order.
We must discard at the outset the strongly urged contention of the Government that dismissal of this action was justified because petitioner conspired with I. G. Farben, Sturzenegger & Cie, and others to transfer ownership of General Aniline to it prior to 1941 so that seizure would be avoided and advantage taken of Swiss secrecy laws. In other words, the Government suggests that petitioner stands in the position of one who deliberately courted legal impediments to production of the Sturzenegger records, and who thus cannot now be heard to assert its good faith after this expectation was realized. Certainly these contentions, if supported by the facts, would have a vital bearing on justification for dismissal of the action, but they are not open to the Government here. The findings below reach no such conclusions; indeed, it is not even apparent from them whether this particular charge was ever passed upon below. Although we do not mean to preclude the Government from seeking to establish such facts before the District Court upon remand, or any other facts relevant to justification for dismissal of the complaint, we must dispose of this case on the basis of the findings of good faith made by the Special Master, adopted by the District Court, and approved by the Court of Appeals.
The provisions of Rule 37 which are here involved must be read in light of the provisions of the Fifth Amendment that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law, and more particularly against the opinions of this Court in Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, and Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U. S. 322. These decisions establish that there are constitutional limitations upon the power of courts, even in aid of their own valid processes, to dismiss an action without affording a party the opportunity for a hearing on the merits of his cause. The authors of Rule 37 were well aware of these constitutional considerations. See Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, Rule 37, 28 U. S. C. (1952 ed.), p. 4325.
In Hovey v. Elliott, supra, it was held that due process was denied a defendant whose answer was struck, thereby leading to a decree pro confesso without a hearing on the merits, because of his refusal to obey a court order pertinent to the suit. This holding was substantially modified by Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, supra, where the Court ruled that a state court, consistently with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, could strike the answer of and render a default judgment against a defendant who refused to produce documents in accordance with a pretrial order. The Hovey case was distinguished on grounds that the defendant there was denied his right to defend “as a mere punishment”; due process was found preserved in Hammond on the reasoning that the State simply utilized a permissible presumption that the refusal to produce material evidence “. . . was but an admission of the want of merit in the asserted defense.” 212 U. S., at 350-351. But the Court took care to emphasize that the defendant had not been penalized “. . . for a failure to do that which it may not have been in its power .to do.” All the State had required “was a bona fide effort to comply with an order . . . , and therefore any reasonable showing of an inability to comply would have satisfied the requirements . . .” of the order. 212 U. S., at 347.
These two decisions leave open the question whether Fifth Amendment due process is violated by the striking of a complaint because of a plaintiff’s inability, despite good-faith efforts, to comply with a pretrial production order. The presumption utilized by the Court in the Hammond case might well falter under such circumstances. Cf. Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463. Certainly substantial constitutional questions are provoked by such action. Their gravity is accented in the present case where petitioner, though cast in the role of plaintiff, cannot be deemed to be in the customary role of a party invoking the aid of a court to vindicate rights asserted against another. Rather petitioner’s position is more analogous to that of a defendant, for it belatedly challenges the Government’s action by now protesting against a seizure and seeking the recovery of assets which were summarily possessed by the Alien Property Custodian without the opportunity for protest by any party claiming that seizure was unjustified under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Past decisions of this Court emphasize that this summary power to seize property which is believed to be enemy-owned is rescued from constitutional invalidity under the Due Process and Just Compensation Clauses of the Fifth Amendment only by those provisions of the Act which afford a nonenemy claimant a later judicial hearing as to the propriety of the seizure. See Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 245-246; Guessefeldt v. McGrath, 342 U. S. 308, 318; cf. Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481, 489.
The findings below, and what has been shown as to petitioner’s extensive efforts at compliance, compel the conclusion on this record that petitioner’s failure to satisfy fully the requirements of this production order was due to inability fostered neither by its own conduct nor by circumstances within its control. It is hardly debatable that fear of criminal prosecution constitutes a weighty excuse for nonproduction, and this excuse is not weakened because the laws preventing compliance are those of a foreign sovereign. Of course this situation should be distinguished from one where a party claims that compliance with a court’s order will reveal facts which may provide the basis for criminal prosecution of that party under the penal laws of a foreign sovereign thereby shown to have been violated. Cf. United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, 149. Here the findings below establish that the very fact of compliance by disclosure of banking records will itself constitute the initial violation of Swiss laws. In our view, petitioner stands in the position of an American plaintiff subject to criminal sanctions in Switzerland because production of documents in Switzerland pursuant to the order of a United States court might violate Swiss laws. Petitioner has sought no privileges because of its foreign citizenship which are not accorded domestic litigants in United States courts. Cf. Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U. S. 126, 133-135. It does not claim that Swiss laws protecting banking records should here be enforced. It explicitly recognizes that it is subject to procedural rules of United States courts in this litigation and has made full efforts to follow these rules. It asserts no immunity from them. It asserts only its inability to comply because of foreign law.
In view of the findings in this case, the position in which petitioner stands in this litigation, and the serious constitutional questions we have noted, we think that Rule 37 should not be construed to authorize dismissal of this complaint because of petitioner's noncompliance with a pretrial production order when it has been established that failure to comply has been due to inability, and not to willfulness, bad faith, or any fault of petitioner.
This is not to say that petitioner will profit through its inability to tender the records called for. In seeking recovery of the General Aniline stock and other assets, petitioner recognizes that it carries the ultimate burden of proof of showing itself not to be an “enemy” within the meaning of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The Government already has disputed its right to recovery by relying on information obtained through seized records of I. G. Farben, documents obtained through petitioner, and depositions taken of persons affiliated with petitioner. It may be that in a trial on the merits, petitioner's inability to produce specific information will prove a serious handicap in dispelling doubt the Government might be able to inject into the case. It may be that in the absence of complete disclosure by petitioner, the District Court would be justified in drawing inferences unfavorable to petitioner as to particular events. So much indeed petitioner concedes. But these problems go to the adequacy of petitioner’s proof and should not on this record preclude petitioner from being able to contest on the merits.
On remand, the District Court possesses wide discretion to proceed in whatever manner it deems most effective. It may desire to afford the Government additional opportunity to challenge petitioner’s good faith. It may wish to explore plans looking towards fuller compliance. Or it may decide to commence at once trial on the merits. We decide only that on this record dismissal of the complaint with prejudice was not justified.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Rule 37 is entitled: “Refusal to Make Discovery: Consequences.” Different subsections refer to “Refusal to Answer” (a), “Expenses on Refusal to Admit” (c), “Failure of Party to Attend or Serve Answers” (d), and “Failure to Respond to Letters Rogatory” (e). We find no design in the Rules evidenced by this pattern of words to establish the clear distinction petitioner detects between mere failure and willful refusal insofar as Rule 37 (b) is concerned. The word "refusal,” by way of example, clearly refers in several instances in subsection (a) of the Rule to noncompliance for any reason. And Rule 41 (b) in turn, discussed above in text, refers simply to “failure ... to comply” but might as applied to a particular situation require a showing of willfulness to justify dismissal. (Italics added throughout.) The words “refusal” and “failure” cannot be deemed to bear a fixed meaning common to their use in all sections but must be read in the context of a particular subsection.
The Government relies in part upon a number of British prize cases in support of its position that dismissal without adjudication on the merits is justified where a party is prevented by foreign laws from satisfying a court order. However these cases are to be interpreted, they are not persuasive authority on the issue before us. We are here concerned with the interpretation to be accorded rules governing procedure in the federal courts and with constitutional doctrine underlying these rules.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA or Act), 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. §§51-60, makes common carrier railroads liable in damages to employees who suffer work-related injuries caused “in whole or in part” by the railroad’s negligence. This case, brought against Norfolk & Western Railway Company (Norfolk) by six former employees now suffering from asbestosis (asbestosis claimants), presents two issues involving the FELA’s application. The first issue concerns the damages recoverable by a railroad worker who suffers from the disease asbestosis: When the cause of that disease, in whole or in part, was exposure to asbestos while on the job, may the worker’s recovery for his asbestosis-related “pain and suffering” include damages for fear of developing cancer?
The second issue concerns the extent of the railroad’s liability when third parties not before the court — for example, prior or subsequent employers or asbestos manufacturers or suppliers — may have contributed to the worker’s injury. Is the railroad answerable in full to the employee, so that pursuit of contribution or indemnity from other potentially liable enterprises is the railroad’s sole damages-award-sharing recourse? Or is the railroad initially entitled to an apportionment among injury-causing tortfeasors, i. e., a division of damages limiting the railroad’s liability to the injured employee to a proportionate share?
In resolving the first issue, we follow the line drawn by Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley, 521 U. S. 424 (1997), a decision that relied on and complemented Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall, 512 U. S. 532 (1994). In Metro-North, we held that emotional distress damages may not be recovered under the FELA by disease-free asbestos-exposed workers; in contrast, we observed, workers who “suffe[r] from a disease” (here, asbestosis) may “recover for related negligently caused emotional distress.” 521 U. S., at 432. We decline to blur, blend, or reconfigure our FELA jurisprudence in the manner urged by the petitioner; instead, we adhere to the clear line our recent decisions delineate. Accordingly, we hold that mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the FELA by a railroad worker suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos.
As to the second issue, we similarly decline to write new law by requiring an initial apportionment of damages among potential tortfeasors. The FELA’s express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of the Act, allow a worker to recover his entire damages from a railroad whose negligence jointly caused an injury (here, the chronic disease asbestosis), thus placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from other tortfeasors.
HH
The asbestosis claimants (plaintiffs below, respondents here) brought this FELA action against their former employer, Norfolk, in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. Norfolk, they alleged, negligently exposed them to asbestos, which caused them to contract the occupational disease asbestosis. App. 17-20. As an element of their occupational disease damages, the asbestosis claimants sought recovery for mental anguish based on their fear of developing cancer. Id., at 21.
Before trial, Norfolk moved to exclude all evidence referring to cancer as irrelevant and prejudicial. Id., at 52-53. The trial court denied the motion, Tr. 251 (Apr. 14, 1998), and the asbestosis claimants placed before the jury extensive evidence relating to cancer, including expert testimony that asbestosis sufferers with smoking histories have a significantly increased risk of developing lung cancer. (Of the six asbestosis claimants, five had smoking histories, and two persisted in smoking even after their asbestosis diagnosis. App. 265, 336-337.) Asbestosis sufferers — workers whose exposure to asbestos has manifested itself in a chronic disease — the jury also heard, have a significant (one in ten) risk of dying of mesothelioma, a fatal cancer of the lining of the lung or abdominal cavity. Id., at 92-97 (asbestosis claimants’ expert); id., at 472 (Norfolk’s expert) (nine or ten percent).
Concluding that no asbestosis claimant had shown he was reasonably certain to develop cancer, the trial court instructed the jury that damages could not be awarded to any claimant “for cancer or any increased risk of cancer.” Id., at 573. The testimony about cancer, the court explained, was relevant “only to judge the genuineness of plaintiffs’ claims of fear of developing cancer.” Ibid. On that score, the court charged:
“[A]ny plaintiff who has demonstrated that he has developed a reasonable fear of cancer that is related to proven physical injury from asbestos is entitled to be compensated for that fear as a part of the damages you may award for pain and suffering.” Ibid.
In so instructing the jury, the court rejected Norfolk’s proposed instruction, which would have ruled out damages for an asbestosis sufferer’s fear of cancer, unless the claimant proved both “an actual likelihood of developing cancer” and “physical manifestations” of the alleged fear. See id., at 548.
The trial court also refused Norfolk’s request to instruct the jury to apportion damages between Norfolk and other employers alleged to have contributed to an asbestosis claimant’s disease. Id., at 539. Two of the claimants had significant exposure to asbestos while working for other employers: Carl Butler, exposed to asbestos at Norfolk for only three months, worked with asbestos elsewhere as a pipefitter for 33 years, id., at 250, 252, 375; Freeman Ayers was exposed to asbestos for several years while working at auto-body shops, id., at 274-275. In awarding damages, the trial court charged, the jury was “not to make a deduction for the contribution of non-railroad exposures,” so long as it found that Norfolk was negligent and that “dust exposures at [Norfolk] contributed, however slightly, to the plaintiff’s injuries.” Id., at 570.
The jury returned total damages awards for each asbestosis claimant, ranging from $770,000 to $1.2 million. Id., at 578-589. After reduction for three claimants’ comparative negligence from smoking and for settlements with non-FELA entities, the final judgments amounted to approximately $4.9 million. Id., at 590-613. It is impossible to look behind those judgments to determine the amount the jury awarded for any particular element of damages. Norfolk, although it could have done so, see W. Va. Rule Civ. Proc. 49 (1998), did not endeavor to clarify the jury’s damages determinations; it did not seek a special verdict or interrogatory calling upon the jury to report, separately, its assessments, if any, for fear-of-eancer damages.
The trial court denied Norfolk’s motion for a new trial, App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied Norfolk’s request for discretionary review, id., at 1a-2a. We granted certiorari, 535 U. S. 969 (2002), and now affirm.
II
Section 1 of the FELA renders common carrier railroads “liable in damages to any person suffering injury while... employed by [the] carrier” if the “injury or death result-fed] in whole or in part from the [carrier’s] negligence.” 45 U. S. C. §51. Enacted in 1908, Congress designed the FELA to “shif[t] part of the ‘human overhead’ of doing business from employees to their employers.” Gottshall, 512 U. S., at 542 (quoting Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 318 U. S. 54, 58 (1943)). “[T]o further [the Act’s] humanitarian purposes, Congress did away with several common-law tort defenses that had effectively barred recovery by injured workers.” Gottshall, 512 U. S., at 542. As cataloged in Gottshall, the FELA “abolished the fellow servant rule”; “rejected the doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of... comparative negligence”; “prohibited employers from exempting themselves from [the] FELA through contract”; and, in a 1939 amendment, “abolished the assumption of risk defense.” Id., at 542-543; see 45 U. S. C. §§51-55. “Only to the extent of these explicit statutory alterations,” however, “is [the] FELA ‘an avowed departure from the rules of the common law.’ ” Gottshall, 512 U. S., at 544 (quoting Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 356 U. S. 326, 329 (1958)). When the Court confronts a dispute regarding what injuries are compensable under the statute, Gottshall instructs, common-law principles “are entitled to great weight in our analysis.” 512 U. S., at 544; see id., at 558 (SOUTER, J., concurring) (The Court’s duty “is to develop a federal common law of negligence under FELA, informed by reference to the evolving common law.”).
Ill
A
We turn first to the question whether the trial judge correctly stated the law when he charged the jury that an asbestosis claimant, upon demonstrating á reasonable fear of cancer stemming from his present disease, could recover for that fear as part of asbestosis-related pain and suffering damages. See supra, at 143. In answering this question, we follow the path marked by the Court’s decisions in Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall, 512 U. S. 532 (1994), and Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley, 521 U. S. 424 (1997).
The FELA plaintiff in Gottshall alleged that he witnessed the death of a co-worker while on the job, and that the episode caused him severe emotional distress. 512 U. S., at 536-537. He sought to recover damages from his employer, Conrail, for “mental or emotional harm... not directly brought about by a physical injury.” Id., at 544.
Reversing the Court of Appeals’ judgment in favor of the plaintiff, this Court stated that uncabined recognition of claims for negligently inflicted emotional distress would “hol[d] out the very real possibility of nearly infinite and unpredictable liability for defendants.” Id., at 546. Of the “limiting tests... developed in the common law,” ibid., the Court selected the zone-of-danger test to delineate “the proper scope of an employer’s duty under [the] FELA to avoid subjecting its employees to negligently inflicted emotional injury,” id., at 554. That test confines recovery for stand-alone emotional distress claims to plaintiffs who: (1) “sustain a physical impact as a result of a defendant’s negligent conduct”; or (2) “are placed in immediate risk of physical harm by that conduct” — that is, those who escaped instant physical harm, but were “within the zone of danger of physical impact.” Id., at 547-548 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court remanded Gottshall for reconsideration under the zone-of-danger test. Id., at 558.
In Metro-North, the Court applied the zone-of-danger test to a claim for damages under the FELA, one element of which was fear of cancer stemming from exposure to asbestos. The plaintiff in Metro-North had been intensively exposed to asbestos while working as a pipefitter for Metro-North in New York City’s Grand Central Terminal. At the time of his lawsuit, however, he had a clean bill of health. The Court rejected his entire claim for relief. Exposure alone, the Court held, is insufficient to show “physical impact” under the zone-of-danger test. 521 U. S., at 430. “[A] simple (though extensive) contact with a carcinogenic substance,” the Court observed, “does not... offer much help in separating valid from invalid emotional distress claims.” Id., at 434. The evaluation problem would be formidable, the Court explained, “because contacts, even extensive contacts, with serious carcinogens are common.” Ibid. “The large number of those exposed and the uncertainties that may surround recovery,” the Court added, “suggest what Gottshall called the problem of ‘unlimited and unpredictable liábility.’ ” Id., at 435 (quoting 512 U. S., at 557).
As in Gottshall, the Court distinguished stand-alone distress claims from prayers for damages for emotional pain and suffering tied to a physical injury: “Common-law courts,” the Court recognized, “do permit a plaintiff who suffers from a disease to recover for related negligently caused emotional distress....” 521 U. S., at 432 (emphasis added). When a plaintiff suffers from a disease, the Court noted, common-law courts have made “a special effort” to value related emotional distress, “perhaps from a desire to make a physically injured victim whole or because the parties are likely to be in court in any event.” Id., at 436-437.
In sum, our decisions in Gottshall and Metro-North describe two categories: Stand-alone emotional distress claims not provoked by any physical injury, for which recovery is sharply circumscribed by the zone-of-danger test; and emotional distress claims brought on by a physical injury, for which pain and suffering recovery is permitted. Norfolk, whose position the principal dissent embraces, see, e. g., post, at 172, 177 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), would have us ally this case with those in the stand-alone emotional distress category, Brief for Petitioner 16-31; the asbestosis claimants urge its placement in the emotional distress brought on by a physical injury (or disease) category, Brief for Respondents 26.
Relevant to this characterization question, the parties agree that asbestosis is a cognizable injury under the FELA. See Urie v. Thompson, 337 U. S. 163, 187 (1949) (occupational diseases caused by exposure to hazardous dusts are injuries under the FELA). Norfolk does not dispute that the claimants suffer from asbestosis, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 4, or that asbestosis can be “a clinically serious, often disabling, and progressive disease,” Reply Brief 6 (internal quotation marks omitted). As Metro-North plainly indicates, pain and suffering damages may include compensation for fear of cancer when that fear “accompanies a physical injury.” 521 U. S., at 430; see id., at 436 (“The common law permits emotional distress recovery for that category of plaintiffs who suffer from a disease.”). Norfolk, therefore, cannot plausibly maintain that the claimants here, like the plaintiff in Metro-North, “are disease and symptom free.” Id., at 432. The plaintiffs in Gottshall and Metro-North grounded their suits on claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The claimants before us, in contrast, complain of a negligently inflicted physical injury (asbestosis) and attendant pain and suffering.
B
Unlike stand-alone claims for negligently inflicted emotional distress, claims for pain and suffering associated with, or “parasitic” on, a physical injury are traditionally compen-sable. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 456 (1963-1964) (hereinafter Restatement) states the general rule:
“If the actor’s negligent conduct has so caused any bodily harm to another as to make him liable for it, the actor is also subject to liability for
“(a) fright, shock, or other emotional disturbance resulting from the bodily harm or from the conduct which causes it...(Emphases added.)
A plaintiff suffering bodily harm need not allege physical manifestations of her mental anguish. Id., Comment c. “The plaintiff must of course present evidence that she has suffered, but otherwise her emotional distress claims, in whatever form, are fully recoverable.” D. Dobbs, Law of Torts 822 (2000).
By 1908, when the FELA was enacted, the common law had evolved to encompass apprehension of Mure harm as a component of pain and suffering. The future harm, genuinely feared, need not be more likely than not to materialize. See Minneman, Future Disease or Condition, or Anxiety Relating Thereto, as Element of Recovery, 50 A. L. R. 4th 18, 25, § 2[a] (1986) (mental anguish related to physical injury is recoverable even if “the underlying future prospect is not itself compensable inasmuch as it is not sufficiently likely to occur”). Physically injured plaintiffs, it is now recognized, may recover for “reasonable fears” of a future disease. Dobbs, supra, at 844. As a classic example, plaintiffs bitten by dogs succeeded in gaining recovery, not only for the pain of the wound, but also for their fear that the bite would someday result in rabies or tetanus. The wound might heal, but “[t]he ghost of hydrophobia is raised, not to down during the life-time of the victim.” The Lord Derby, 17 F. 265, 267 (ED La. 1883).
In the course of the 20th century, courts sustained a variety of other “fear-of” claims. Among them have been claims for fear of cancer. Heightened vulnerability to cancer, as one court observed, “must necessarily have a most depressing effect upon the injured person. Like the sword of Damocles,” he knows it is there, but not whether or when it will fall. Alley v. Charlotte Pipe & Foundry Co., 159 N. C. 327, 331, 74 S. E. 885, 886 (1912).
Many courts in recent years have considered the question presented here — whether an asbestosis claimant may be compensated for fear of cancer. Of decisions that address the issue, a clear majority sustain recovery. See, e. g., Hoerner v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 2000-2333, p. 49 (La. App. 1/23/02), 812 So. 2d 45, 77 (fear of cancer testimony “appropriately presented in order to prove [asbestosis claimant’s] general damage claim”); Beeman v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Disease Compensation Fund, 496 N. W. 2d 247, 252-253 (Iowa 1993) (cancer evidence held admissible to show reasonableness of asbestosis claimant’s fear of cancer); Denton v. Southern R. Co., 854 S. W. 2d 885, 888-889 (Tenn. App. 1993) (FELA decision holding erroneous “Trial Court’s exclusion of evidence about [asbestosis claimant’s] fear of cancer”); Celotex Corp. v. Wilson, 607 A. 2d 1223, 1229-1230 (Del. 1992) (sustaining jury charge allowing damages for asbestosis claimants’ fear of cancer); Coffman v. Keene Corp., 257 N. J. Super. 279, 293-294, 608 A. 2d 416, 424-425 (1992) (sustaining award of damages that included compensation for asbestosis claimant’s fear of cancer); Fibreboard Corp. v. Pool, 813 S. W. 2d 658, 666, 675-676 (Tex. App. 1991) (sustaining jury charge allowing fear of cancer damages for plaintiff with “confirmed asbestosis”); Sorenson v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 51 Wash. App. 954, 958, 756 P. 2d 740, 742 (1988) (evidence of increased risk of cancer held “admissible to establish, as a damage factor, the reasonableness of [an asbestosis claimant’s] fear that he would contract cancer”); Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox, 481 So. 2d 517, 529 (Fla. App. 1985) (asbestosis claimants may recover for fear of cancer); Devlin v. Johns-Manville Corp., 202 N. J. Super. 556, 563, 495 A. 2d 495, 499 (1985) (asbestosis claimants, who suffered “substantial bodily harm” from asbestos, may recover for fear of cancer).
Arguing against the trend in the lower courts, Norfolk and its supporting amici assert that the asbestosis claimants’ alleged cancer fears are too remote from asbestosis to warrant inclusion in their pain and suffering awards. In support of this contention, the United States, one of Norfolk’s amici, refers to the “separate disease rule,” under which most courts have held that the statute of limitations runs separately for each asbestos-related disease. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12. See, e. g., Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 684 F. 2d 111, 120-121 (CADC 1982); Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp., 35 S. W. 3d 643, 649, n. 3 (Tex. 2000) (listing cases). Because the asbestosis claimants may bring a second action if cancer develops, Norfolk and the Government argue, cancer-related damages are unwarranted in their asbestosis suit. Tr. of Oral Arg. 17-18; Reply Brief 5. The question, as the Government frames it, is not whether the asbestosis claimants can recover for fear of cancer, but when. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 15. The principal dissent sounds a similar theme. Post, at 174 (“a person with asbestosis will not be without a remedy for pain and suffering caused by cancer”).
But the asbestosis claimants did not seek, and the trial court did not allow, discrete damages for their increased risk of future cancer. App. 573 (“[Y]ou cannot award damages to plaintiffs for cancer or for any increased risk of cancer.”); see supra, at 143. Instead, the claimants sought damages for their current injury, which, they allege, encompasses a present fear that the toxic exposure causative of asbestosis may later result in cancer. The Government’s “when, not whether,” argument has a large gap; it excludes recovery for the fear experienced by an asbestosis sufferer who never gets cancer. For such a person, the question is whether, not when, he may recover for his fear.
Even if the question is whether, not simply when, an asbestosis sufferer may recover for cancer fear, Norfolk has another string in its bow. To be compensable as pain and suffering, Norfolk maintains, a mental or emotional harm must have been “directly brought about by a physical injury.” Brief for Petitioner 15 (emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gottshall, 512 U. S., at 544). Because asbestosis itself, as distinguished from asbestos exposure, does not generate cancer, Norfolk insists and the principal dissent agrees, “fear of cancer is too unrelated, as a matter of law, to be an element of [an asbestosis sufferer’s] pain and suffering.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 11; see post, at 172. This argument elides over a key connection between Norfolk’s conduct and the damages the asbestosis claimants allege as an element of their pain and suffering: Once found liable for “any bodily harm,” a negligent actor is answerable in damages for emotional disturbance “resulting from the bodily harm or from the conduct which causes it." Restatement § 456(a) (emphasis added).
There is an undisputed relationship between exposure to asbestos sufficient to cause asbestosis, and asbestos-related cancer. Norfolk’s own expert acknowledged that asbestosis puts a worker in a heightened risk category for asbestos-related lung cancer. App. 470 (affirming that “asbestosis has to be necessary before lung cancer is a problem”). See W. Morgan & A. Seaton, Occupational Lung Diseases 151 (3d ed. 1995) (hereinafter Morgan & Seaton) (“[H]eavy cumulative exposures to asbestos which lead to asbestosis increase the risk of developing lung cancer.... [T]here is now considerable evidence which indicates that the risk of lung cancer only increases when asbestosis is present.”). See also id., at 341 (“There is no doubt... that the presence of asbestosis, at least in smokers, is associated with a significantly increased rate of lung cancer.”); A. Churg & F. Green, Pathology of Occupational Lung Disease 343 (2d ed. 1998) (“[Studies provide strong support for the notion that asbestosis is crucial to the development of asbestos-associated lung cancers.”).
Furthermore, the asbestosis claimants’ expert testified without contradiction to a risk notably “different in kind from the background risks that all individuals face,” post, at 187 (Breyer, J.): Some “ten percent of the people who have the disease, asbestosis, have died of mesothelioma.” App. 93; see Morgan & Seaton 350 (“The evidence suggests that, once the lungs of the susceptible subject have been primed by a sufficient dose of asbestos, then the development of [me-sothelioma] is inevitable.”). In light of this evidence, an asbestosis sufferer would have good cause for increased apprehension about his vulnerability to another illness from his exposure, a disease that inflicts “agonizing, unremitting pain,” relieved only by death, post, at 168 (Kennedy, J.): Asbestosis is “a chronic, painful and concrete reminder that [a plaintiff] has been injuriously exposed to a substantial amount of asbestos, a reminder which may both qualitatively and quantitatively intensify his fear.” Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox, 481 So. 2d, at 529.
Norfolk understandably underscores a point central to the Court’s decision in Metro-North. Reply Brief 10. The Court’s opinion in Metro-North stressed that holding employers liable to workers merely exposed to asbestos would risk “unlimited and unpredictable liability.” 521 U. S., at 435 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gottshall, 512 U. S., at 557). But as earlier observed, see supra, at 147, Metro-North sharply distinguished exposure-only plaintiffs from “plaintiffs who suffer from a disease,” and stated, unambiguously, that “[t]he common law permits emotional distress recovery for [the latter] category.” 521 U. S., at 436; see id., at 432. Commentary similarly distinguishes asymptomatic asbestos plaintiffs from plaintiffs who “developed asbestosis and thus suffered real physical harm.” Henderson & Twerski, Asbestos Litigation Gone Mad: Exposure-Based Recovery for Increased Risk, Mental Distress, and Medical Monitoring, 53 S. C. L. Rev. 815, 830 (2002); see id., at 830, 833-834 (classifying plaintiffs with pleural thickening as asymptomatic and observing that, unlike asbestosis sufferers, they face no “significantly increased risk of developing cancer” and do not “suffe[r] current pain that serves as a constant reminder that a more serious disease may come upon [them]”).
The categorical approach endorsed in Metro-North serves to reduce the universe of potential claimants to numbers neither “unlimited” nor “unpredictable.” Relevant here, and as Norfolk recognizes, of those exposed to asbestos, only a fraction will develop asbestosis. Brief for Petitioner 22, n. 16 (quoting In re Haw. Fed. Asbestos Cases, 734 F. Supp. 1563, 1570 (Haw. 1990) (“A reasonable person, exercising due diligence, should know that of those exposed to asbestos, only a small percentage suffer from asbestos-related physical impairment.”)); cf. Morgan & Seaton 319 (study showed that of persons exposed to asbestos after 1959, only 2 percent had asbestosis when first examined; for those exposed from 1950-1959, that figure is 18 percent).
C
Norfolk presented the question “[w]hether a plaintiff who has asbestosis but not cancer can recover damages for fear of cancer under the [FELA] without proof of physical manifestations of the claimed emotional distress.” Brief for Petitioner (i). Our answer is yes, with an important reservation. We affirm only the qualification of an asbestosis sufferer to seek compensation for fear of cancer as an element of his asbestosis-related pain and suffering damages. It is incumbent upon such a complainant, however, to prove that his alleged fear is genuine and serious. See, e. g., Smith v. A. C. & S., Inc., 843 F. 2d 854, 859 (CA5 1988) (“general concern for [one’s] future health” held insufficient to support recovery for an asbestosis sufferer’s fear of cancer); Coffman v. Keene, 257 N. J. Super., at 293-294, 608 A. 2d, at 424-425 (sustaining a verdict including fear-of-cancer damages where trial judge found plaintiff “ha[d] a genuine, real believable fear of cancer” (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also Minneman, 50 A. L. R. 4th, §5, at 54-56, (discussing cases affirming the view that “apprehension must be genuine”). In this case, proof directed to that matter was notably thin, and might well have succumbed to a straightforward sufficiency-of-the-evidence objection, had Norfolk so targeted its attack.
Norfolk, however, sought a larger shield. In the trial court and in its unsuccessful petition to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Norfolk urged that fear of cancer could figure in the recovery only if the claimant proved both a likelihood of developing cancer and physical manifestations of the alleged fear. See App. 548 (Norfolk’s charge request); id., at 634 (amended petition for appeal). And although Norfolk submitted proposed verdict forms, id., at 549-560, those forms did not call for jury specification of the amount of damages, if any, awarded for fear of cancer. Thus, as earlier observed, supra, at 144, it is impossible to tell from the verdicts returned whether the jury ascribed any part of the damages awards to the alleged cancer fear, and if so, how much.
We did not grant review, in any event, to judge the sufficiency of the evidence or the reasonableness of the damages awards. We rule, specifically and only, on the question whether this case should be aligned with those in which fear of future injury stems from a current injury, or with those presenting a stand-alone claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. We hold that the former categorization is the proper one under the FELA.
IV
We turn next to Norfolk’s contention that the trial court erred in instructing the jury “not to make a deduction [from damages awards] for the contribution of non-railroad [asbestos] exposures” to the asbestosis claimants’ injuries. App. 570. The statutory language, however, supports the trial court’s understanding that the FELA does not authorize apportionment of damages between railroad and nonrailroad causes. Section 1 of the Act, to which we earlier referred, see supra, at 144-145, provides:
“Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in [interstate commerce], shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce... for such injury... resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of... such carrier....” 45 U. S. C. § 51.
The claimants here suffer from asbestosis (an “injury”), which is linked to their employment with Norfolk and “resulted] in whole or in part from... negligence” by Norfolk. Norfolk is therefore “liable in damages... for such injury.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Nothing in the statutory text instructs that the amount of damages payable by a liable employer bears reduction when the negligence of a third party also contributed in part to the injury-in-suit.
Resisting this reading, Norfolk trains on the statutory language conveying that a railroad is liable only for injuries an employee sustains “while he is employed by such carrier.” Ibid. That language, Norfolk maintains, “makes clear that railroads are not liable for employee injuries that result from outside causes.” Brief for Petitioner 32. Norfolk’s argument uncouples the statutory language from its context, and thereby obscures its meaning.
The FELA applies to railroads only “while [they are] engaging in” interstate commerce. 45 U. S. C. § 51. The clause on which Norfolk relies clarifies that the statute’s reach is correspondingly limited to injuries sustained by railroad employees while the employees are themselves engaged “in such commerce.” Ibid, (emphasis added); cf. The Employers’ Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463, 504 (1908) (predecessor statute declared unconstitutional because it regulated employee injuries not sufficiently related to interstate commerce). Placed in context, the clause does not speak to eases in which an injury has multiple eauses, some related to railroad employment and others unrelated to that employment. Such cases, we think, are controlled by the language just noted, which states that the railroad is “liable in damages” so long as the injury was caused “in whole or in part” by its “negligence.” 45 U. S. C. §51.
The statutory context bolsters our reading, for interpreting § 1 to require apportionment would put that provision in tension with the rest of the statute. As recounted earlier, see supra, at 145, several of the FELA’s provisions expand a railroad’s liability by abolishing common-law defenses that limited employees’ ability to recover against their employers. Among the innovations, the Act expressly directs apportionment of responsibility between employer and employee based on comparative fault. See §53 (set out in relevant part supra, at 144, n. 6). The statute expressly prescribes no other apportionment.
Essentially, then, Norfolk asks us to narrow employer liability without a textual warrant. Reining in employer liability as Norfolk proposes, however, is both unprovided for by the language of the FELA and inconsistent with the Act’s overall recovery facilitating thrust. Accordingly, we find Norfolk’s plea an untenable reading of the congressional silence. Cf. Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U. S. 256, 268, n. 23 (1979) (“It would be particularly curious for Congress to refer expressly to the established principle of comparative negligence, yet say not a word about adopting a new rule limiting the liability of the [defendant] on the basis of [another party’s] negligence.”).
Norfolk’s view also runs counter to a century of FELA jurisprudence. No FELA decision made by this Court so much as hints that the statute mandates apportionment of damages among potentially liable tortfeasors. Indeed, Rogers v. Missouri
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Copyright Act gives federal district courts discretion to award "full costs" to a party in copyright litigation.
17 U.S.C. § 505. In the general statute governing awards of costs, Congress has specified six categories of litigation expenses that qualify as "costs." See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821, 1920. The question presented in this case is whether the Copyright Act's reference to "full costs" authorizes a court to award litigation expenses beyond the six categories of "costs" specified by Congress in the general costs statute. The statutory text and our precedents establish that the answer is no. The term "full" is a term of quantity or amount; it does not expand the categories or kinds of expenses that may be awarded as "costs" under the general costs statute. In copyright cases, § 505's authorization for the award of "full costs" therefore covers only the six categories specified in the general costs statute, codified at §§ 1821 and 1920. We reverse in relevant part the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I
Oracle develops and licenses software programs that manage data and operations for businesses and non-profit organizations. Oracle also offers its customers software maintenance services.
Rimini Street sells third-party software maintenance services to Oracle customers. In doing so, Rimini competes with Oracle's software maintenance services.
Oracle sued Rimini and its CEO in Federal District Court in Nevada, asserting claims under the Copyright Act and various other federal and state laws. Oracle alleged that Rimini, in the course of providing software support services to Oracle customers, copied Oracle's software without licensing it.
A jury found that Rimini had infringed various Oracle copyrights and that both Rimini and its CEO had violated California and Nevada computer access statutes. The jury awarded Oracle $ 35.6 million in damages for copyright infringement and $ 14.4 million in damages for violations of the state computer access statutes. After judgment, the District Court ordered the defendants to pay Oracle an additional $ 28.5 million in attorney's fees and $ 4.95 million in costs; the Court of Appeals reduced the latter award to $ 3.4 million. The District Court also ordered the defendants to pay Oracle $ 12.8 million for litigation expenses such as expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting.
That $ 12.8 million award is the subject of the dispute in this case. As relevant here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's $ 12.8 million award. The Court of Appeals recognized that the general federal statute authorizing district courts to award costs, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920, lists only six categories of costs that may be awarded against the losing party. And the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the $ 12.8 million award covered expenses not included within those six categories. But the Court of Appeals, relying on Circuit precedent, held that the District Court's $ 12.8 million award for additional expenses was still appropriate because § 505 permits the award of "full costs," a term that the Ninth Circuit said was not confined to the six categories identified in §§ 1821 and 1920. 879 F.3d 948, 965-966 (2018).
We granted certiorari to resolve disagreement in the Courts of Appeals over whether the term "full costs" in § 505 authorizes awards of expenses other than those costs identified in §§ 1821 and 1920. 585 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 52, 201 L.Ed.2d 1130 (2018). Compare 879 F.3d at 965-966 ; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Entertainment Distributing , 429 F.3d 869 (C.A.9 2005), with Artisan Contractors Assn. of Am., Inc. v. Frontier Ins. Co. , 275 F.3d 1038 (C.A.11 2001) ; Pinkham v. Camex, Inc. , 84 F.3d 292 (C.A.8 1996).
II
A
Congress has enacted more than 200 subject-specific federal statutes that explicitly authorize the award of costs to prevailing parties in litigation. The Copyright Act is one of those statutes. That Act provides that a district court in a copyright case "in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof." 17 U.S.C. § 505.
In the general "costs" statute, codified at §§ 1821 and 1920 of Title 28, Congress has specified six categories of litigation expenses that a federal court may award as "costs," and Congress has detailed how to calculate the amount of certain costs. Sections 1821 and 1920 in essence define what the term "costs" encompasses in the subject-specific federal statutes that provide for an award of costs.
Sections 1821 and 1920 create a default rule and establish a clear baseline against which Congress may legislate. Consistent with that default rule, some federal statutes simply refer to "costs." In those cases, federal courts are limited to awarding the costs specified in §§ 1821 and 1920. If, for particular kinds of cases, Congress wants to authorize awards of expenses beyond the six categories specified in the general costs statute, Congress may do so. For example, some federal statutes go beyond §§ 1821 and 1920 to expressly provide for the award of expert witness fees or attorney's fees. See West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey , 499 U.S. 83, 89, n. 4, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991). Indeed, the Copyright Act expressly provides for awards of attorney's fees as well as costs. 17 U.S.C. § 505. And the same Congress that enacted amendments to the Copyright Act in 1976 enacted several other statutes that expressly authorized awards of expert witness fees. See Casey , 499 U.S. at 88, 111 S.Ct. 1138. But absent such express authority, courts may not award litigation expenses that are not specified in §§ 1821 and 1920.
Our precedents have consistently adhered to that approach. Three cases illustrate the point.
In Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons , Inc. , the question was whether courts could award expert witness fees under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 54(d) authorizes an award of "costs" but does not expressly refer to expert witness fees. 482 U.S. 437, 441, 107 S.Ct. 2494, 96 L.Ed.2d 385 (1987). In defining what expenses qualify as "costs," §§ 1821 and 1920 likewise do not include expert witness fees. We therefore held that the prevailing party could not obtain expert witness fees: When "a prevailing party seeks reimbursement for fees paid to its own expert witnesses, a federal court is bound by the limit of § 1821(b), absent contract or explicit statutory authority to the contrary." Id. , at 439, 107 S.Ct. 2494.
In Casey , we interpreted 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the federal statute authorizing an award of "costs" in civil rights litigation. We described Crawford Fitting as holding that §§ 1821 and 1920"define the full extent of a federal court's power to shift litigation costs absent express statutory authority to go further." 499 U.S. at 86, 111 S.Ct. 1138. In accord with Crawford Fitting , we concluded that § 1988 does not authorize awards of expert witness fees because § 1988 supplies no " 'explicit statutory authority' " to award expert witness fees. 499 U.S. at 87, 111 S.Ct. 1138 (quoting Crawford Fitting , 482 U.S. at 439, 107 S.Ct. 2494 ).
In Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy , we considered the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which authorized an award of costs. The question was whether that Act's reference to "costs" encompassed expert witness fees. We again explained that "costs" is " 'a term of art that generally does not include expert fees.' " 548 U.S. 291, 297, 126 S.Ct. 2455, 165 L.Ed.2d 526 (2006) ; see also Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. , 566 U.S. 560, 573, 132 S.Ct. 1997, 182 L.Ed.2d 903 (2012). We stated: "[N]o statute will be construed as authorizing the taxation of witness fees as costs unless the statute 'refer[s] explicitly to witness fees.' " Murphy , 548 U.S. at 301, 126 S.Ct. 2455 (quoting Crawford Fitting , 482 U.S. at 445, 107 S.Ct. 2494 ).
Our cases, in sum, establish a clear rule: A statute awarding "costs" will not be construed as authorizing an award of litigation expenses beyond the six categories listed in §§ 1821 and 1920, absent an explicit statutory instruction to that effect. See Murphy , 548 U.S. at 301, 126 S.Ct. 2455 (requiring " 'explici[t]' " authority); Casey , 499 U.S. at 86, 111 S.Ct. 1138 (requiring " 'explicit' " authority); Crawford Fitting , 482 U.S. at 439, 107 S.Ct. 2494 (requiring "explicit statutory authority").
Here, the Copyright Act does not explicitly authorize the award of litigation expenses beyond the six categories specified in §§ 1821 and 1920. And §§ 1821 and 1920 in turn do not authorize an award for expenses such as expert witness fees, e-discovery expenses, and jury consultant fees, which were expenses encompassed by the District Court's $ 12.8 million award to Oracle here. Rimini argues that the $ 12.8 million award therefore cannot stand.
B
To sustain its $ 12.8 million award, Oracle advances three substantial arguments. But we ultimately do not find those arguments persuasive.
First , although Oracle concedes that it would lose this case if the Copyright Act referred only to "costs," Oracle stresses that the Copyright Act uses the word "full" before "costs." Oracle argues that the word "full" authorizes courts to award expenses beyond the costs specified in §§ 1821 and 1920. We disagree. "Full" is a term of quantity or amount. It is an adjective that means the complete measure of the noun it modifies. See American Heritage Dictionary 709 (5th ed. 2011); Oxford English Dictionary 247 (2d ed. 1989). As we said earlier this Term: "Adjectives modify nouns-they pick out a subset of a category that possesses a certain quality." Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. , 586 U.S. ----, ----, 139 S.Ct. 361, 368, 202 L.Ed.2d 269 (2018).
The adjective "full" in § 505 therefore does not alter the meaning of the word "costs." Rather, "full costs" are all the "costs" otherwise available under law. The word "full" operates in the phrase "full costs" just as it operates in other common phrases: A "full moon" means the moon, not Mars. A "full breakfast" means breakfast, not lunch. A "full season ticket plan" means tickets, not hot dogs. So too, the term "full costs" means costs , not other expenses.
The dispute here, therefore, turns on the meaning of the word "costs." And as we have explained, the term "costs" refers to the costs generally available under the federal costs statute- §§ 1821 and 1920. "Full costs" are all the costs generally available under that statute.
Second , Oracle maintains that the term "full costs" in the Copyright Act is a historical term of art that encompasses more than the "costs" listed in the relevant costs statute-here, §§ 1821 and 1920. We again disagree.
Some general background: From 1789 to 1853, federal courts awarded costs and fees according to the relevant state law of the forum State. See Crawford Fitting , 482 U.S. at 439-440, 107 S.Ct. 2494 ; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society , 421 U.S. 240, 247-250, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). In 1853, Congress departed from that state-focused approach. That year, Congress passed and President Fillmore signed a comprehensive federal statute establishing a federal schedule for the award of costs in federal court. Crawford Fitting , 482 U.S. at 440, 107 S.Ct. 2494 ; 10 Stat. 161. Known as the Fee Act of 1853, that 1853 statute has "carried forward to today" in §§ 1821 and 1920" 'without any apparent intent to change the controlling rules.' " Crawford Fitting , 482 U.S. at 440, 107 S.Ct. 2494. As we have said, §§ 1821 and 1920 provide a comprehensive schedule of costs for proceedings in federal court.
Now some copyright law background: The term "full [c]osts" appeared in the first copyright statute in England, the Statute of Anne. 8 Anne c.19, § 8 (1710). In the United States, the Federal Copyright Act of 1831 borrowed the phrasing of English copyright law and used the same term, "full costs." Act of Feb. 3, 1831, § 12, 4 Stat. 438-439. That term has appeared in subsequent revisions of the Copyright Act, through the Act's most recent substantive alterations in 1976. See Act of July 8, 1870, § 108, 16 Stat. 215; Copyright Act of 1909, § 40, 35 Stat. 1084; Copyright Act of 1976, § 505, 90 Stat. 2586.
Oracle argues that English copyright statutes awarding "full costs" allowed the transfer of all expenses of litigation, beyond what was specified in any costs schedule. According to Oracle, Congress necessarily imported that meaning of the term "full costs" into the Copyright Act in 1831. And according to Oracle, that 1831 meaning overrides anything that Congress enacted in any costs statute in 1853 or later.
To begin with, our decision in Crawford Fitting explained that courts should not undertake extensive historical excavation to determine the meaning of costs statutes. We said that §§ 1821 and 1920 apply regardless of when individual subject-specific costs statutes were enacted. 482 U.S. at 445, 107 S.Ct. 2494. The Crawford Fitting principle eliminates the need for that kind of historical analysis and confirms that the Copyright Act's reference to "full costs" must be interpreted by reference to §§ 1821 and 1920.
In any event, Oracle's historical argument fails even on its own terms. Oracle has not persuasively demonstrated that as of 1831, the phrase "full costs" had an established meaning in English or American law that covered more than the full amount of the costs listed in the applicable costs schedule. On the contrary, the federal courts as of 1831 awarded costs in accord with the costs schedule of the relevant state law. See id. , at 439-440, 107 S.Ct. 2494 ; Alyeska Pipeline , 421 U.S. at 250, 95 S.Ct. 1612. And state laws at the time tended to use the term "full costs" to refer to, among other things, full cost awards as distinguished from the half, double, or treble cost awards that were also commonly available under state law at the time. That usage accorded with the ordinary meaning of the term. At the time, the word "full" conveyed the same meaning that it does today: "Complete; entire; not defective or partial." 1 N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 89 (1828); see also 1 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 817 (1773) ("Complete, such as that nothing further is desired or wanted; Complete without abatement; at the utmost degree"). Full costs did not encompass expenses beyond those costs that otherwise could be awarded under the applicable state law.
The case law since 1831 also refutes Oracle's historical argument. If Oracle's account of the history were correct, federal courts starting in 1831 presumably would have interpreted the term "full costs" in the Copyright Act to allow awards of litigation expenses that were not ordinarily available as costs under the applicable costs schedule. But Rimini points out that none of the more than 800 available copyright decisions awarding costs from 1831 to 1976-that is, from the year the term "full costs" first appeared in the Copyright Act until the year that the Act was last significantly amended-awarded expenses other than those specified by the applicable state or federal law. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7. Oracle has not refuted Rimini's argument on that point. Oracle cites no § 505 cases where federal courts awarded expert witness fees or other litigation expenses of the kind at issue here until the Ninth Circuit's 2005 decision adopting the interpretation of § 505 that the Ninth Circuit followed in this case. See Twentieth Century Fox , 429 F.3d 869.
In light of the commonly understood meaning of the term "full costs" as of 1831 and the case law since 1831, Oracle's historical argument falls short. The best interpretation is that the term "full costs" meant in 1831 what it means now: the full amount of the costs specified by the applicable costs schedule.
Third , Oracle advances a variety of surplusage arguments. Oracle contends, for example, that the word "full" would be unnecessary surplusage if Rimini's argument were correct. We disagree. The award of costs in copyright cases was mandatory from 1831 to 1976. See § 40, 35 Stat. 1084; § 12, 4 Stat. 438-439. During that period, the term "full" fixed both a floor and a ceiling for the amount of "costs" that could be awarded. In other words, the term "full costs" required an award of 100 percent of the costs available under the applicable costs schedule.
Oracle says that even if that interpretation of "full costs" made sense before 1976, the meaning of the term "full costs" changed in 1976. That year, Congress amended the Copyright Act to make the award of costs discretionary rather than mandatory. See § 505, 90 Stat. 2586. According to Oracle, after Congress made the costs award discretionary, district courts could award any amount of costs up to 100 percent and so Rimini's reading of the word "full" now adds nothing to "costs." If we assume that Congress in 1976 did not intend "full" to be surplusage, Oracle argues that Congress must have employed the term "full" to mean expenses beyond the costs specified in §§ 1821 and 1920.
For several reasons, that argument does not persuade us.
To begin with, even if the term "full" lacked any continuing significance after 1976, the meaning of "costs" did not change. The term "costs" still means those costs specified in §§ 1821 and 1920. It makes little sense to think that Congress in 1976, when it made the award of full costs discretionary rather than mandatory, silently expanded the kinds of expenses that a court may otherwise award as costs in copyright suits.
Moreover, Oracle's interpretation would create its own redundancy problem by rendering the second sentence of § 505 largely redundant. That second sentence provides: "Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs." 17 U.S.C. § 505. If Oracle were right that "full costs" covers all of a party's litigation expenditures, then the first sentence of § 505 would presumably already cover attorney's fees and the second sentence would be largely unnecessary. In order to avoid some redundancy, Oracle's interpretation would create other redundancy.
Finally, even if Oracle is correct that the term "full" has become unnecessary or redundant as a result of the 1976 amendment, Oracle overstates the significance of statutory surplusage or redundancy. Redundancy is not a silver bullet. We have recognized that some "redundancy is 'hardly unusual' in statutes addressing costs." Marx v. General Revenue Corp. , 568 U.S. 371, 385, 133 S.Ct. 1166, 185 L.Ed.2d 242 (2013). If one possible interpretation of a statute would cause some redundancy and another interpretation would avoid redundancy, that difference in the two interpretations can supply a clue as to the better interpretation of a statute. But only a clue. Sometimes the better overall reading of the statute contains some redundancy.
* * *
The Copyright Act authorizes federal district courts to award "full costs" to a party in copyright litigation. That term means the costs specified in the general costs statute, §§ 1821 and 1920. We reverse in relevant part the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The six categories that a federal court may award as costs are:
"(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
"(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;
"(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
"(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;
"(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
"(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title." 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
In addition, § 1821 provides particular reimbursement rates for witnesses' "[p]er diem and mileage" expenses.
See, e.g. , 1 Laws of Pa., ch. DCXLV, pp. 371, 373 (1810) ("full costs" and "double costs"); 2 Rev. Stat. N. Y., pt. III, ch. X, Tit. 1, §§ 16, 25 (1836) ("full," "double," and "treble" costs); Rev. Stat. Mass., pt. III, Tit. VI, ch. 121, §§ 4, 7, 8, 11, 18 (1836) ("one quarter," "full," "double," and "treble" costs).
Rimini further suggests that "full" still has meaning after 1976 because the statute gives the district court discretion to award either full costs or no costs, unlike statutes that refer only to "costs," which allow courts to award any amount of costs up to full costs. In light of our disposition of the case, we need not and do not consider that argument.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner has been convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to obey a federal court order requiring him to answer certain questions asked in a grand jury investigation. He raises here important issues as to the application of the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, claimed to justify his refusal.
A special federal grand jury was convened at Philadelphia on September 14,1950, to investigate frauds upon the Federal Government, including violations of the customs, narcotics and internal revenue liquor laws of the United States, the White Slave Traffic Act, perjury, bribery, and other federal criminal laws, and conspiracy to commit all such offenses. In response to subpoena petitioner appeared to testify on the day the grand jury was empaneled, and was examined on October 3. The pertinent interrogation, in which he refused to answer, follows:
“Q. What do you do now, Mr. Hoffman?
“A. I refuse to answer.
“Q. Have you been in the same undertaking since the first of the year?
“A. I don’t understand the question.
“Q. Have you been doing the same thing you are doing now since the first of the year?
“A. I refuse to answer.
“Q. Do you know Mr. William Weisberg?
“A. Ido.
“Q. How long have you known him?
“A. Practically twenty years, I guess.
“Q. When did you last see him?
“A. I refuse to answer.
“Q. Have you seen him this week?
“A. I refuse to answer.
“Q. Do you know that a subpoena has been issued for Mr. Weisberg?
“A. I heard about it in Court.
“Q. Have you talked with him on the telephone this week?
“A. I refuse to answer.
“Q. Do you know where Mr. William Weisberg is now?
“A. I refuse to answer.”
It was stipulated that petitioner declined to answer on the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate him of a federal offense.
Petitioner’s claim of privilege was challenged by the Government in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which found no real and substantial danger of incrimination to petitioner and ordered him to return to the grand jury and answer. Petitioner stated in open court that he would not obey the order, and on October 5 was adjudged in criminal contempt and sentenced to five months imprisonment. 18 U. S. C. §401; Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42 (a).
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where the record was docketed on October 11. After denial by the District Court of his request for bail pending appeal, petitioner on October 20 filed in that court a “Petition for Reconsideration of Allowance of Bail Pending Appeal,” alleging that “on the basis of the facts contained in his affidavit, attached ... , he was justified in his refusal to answer the questions as aforesaid, or, in any event, that there is so substantial a question involved that your petitioner should be released on bail . . . .” In the accompanying affidavit petitioner asserted that
“He assumed when he refused to answer the questions involved before the Grand Jury, that both it and the Court were cognizant of, and took into consideration, the facts on which he based his refusals to answer.
“He has since been advised, after his commitment, that the Court did not consider any of said facts upon which he relied and, on the contrary, the Court considered only the bare record [of the questions and answers as set out above].
“In the interest of justice and particularly in aid of a proper' determination of the above petition, he submits the following in support of his position that he genuinely feared to answer the questions propounded:
“(a) This investigation was stated, in the charge of the Court to the Grand Jury, to cover 'the gamut of all crimes covered by federal statute.’ . . .
“(b) Affiant has been publicly charged with being a known underworld character, and a racketeer with a twenty year police record, including a prison sentence on a narcotics charge. . . .
“(c) Affiant, while waiting to testify before the Grand Jury, was photographed with one Joseph N. Bransky, head of the Philadelphia office of the United States Bureau of Narcotics.
“(d) Affiant was questioned concerning the whereabouts of a witness who had not been served with a subpoena and for whom a bench warrant was sought by the Government prosecutor. . . .
“On the basis of the above public facts as well as the facts within his own personal knowledge, affiant avers that he had a real fear that the answers to the questions asked by the Grand Jury would incriminate him of a federal offense.”
Included as appendices to the affidavit were clippings from local newspapers, of dates current with the grand-jury proceeding, reporting the facts asserted in the affidavit. On October 23 the District Court allowed bail. On the following day the petition for reconsideration of allowance of bail, including affidavit and appendices, was filed in the Court of Appeals as a supplemental record on appeal. The Government moved to strike this matter on the ground that it was not properly part of the appeal record.
The Court of Appeals granted the motion to strike and affirmed the conviction. 185 F. 2d 617 (1950). With respect to the questions regarding Weisberg, the court held unanimously that “the relationship between possible admissions in answer to the questions . . . and the proscription of [pertinent federal criminal statutes (18 IT. S. C. §§ 371, 1501)] would need to be much closer for us to conclude that there was real danger in answering.” As to the questions concerning petitioner’s business, the court observed that “It is now quite apparent that the appellant could have shown beyond question that the danger was not fanciful.” In the court’s view the data submitted in the supplemental record “would rather clearly be adequate to establish circumstantially the likelihood that appellant’s assertion of fear of incrimination was not mere contumacy.” But the Court of Appeals concluded, again unanimously, that the information offered in support of the petition for reconsideration of bail “was not before the court when it found appellant in contempt, and therefore cannot be considered now.” Thus limited to the record originally filed, the majority of the court was of the opinion, with •respect to the business questions, that “the witness here failed to give the judge any information which would allow the latter to rule intelligently on the claim of privilege for the witness simply refused to say anything and gave no facts to show why he refused to say anything.” One judge dissented,- concluding that the District Court knew that “the setting of the controversy” was “a grand jury investigation of racketeering and federal crime in the vicinity” and “should have adverted to the fact of common knowledge that there exists a class of persons who live by activity prohibited by federal criminal laws and that some of these persons would be summoned as witnesses in this grand jury investigation.”
Petitioner unsuccessfully sought rehearing in the Court of Appeals, urging remand to the District Court to permit reconsideration of the conviction on the basis of data in the supplemental record. We granted certiorari, 340 U. S. 946 (1951).
This is another of five proceedings before this Court during the present Term in each of which the privilege against self-incrimination has been asserted in the course of federal grand-jury investigations. A number of similar cases have been considered recently by the lower courts. The signal increase in such litigation emphasizes the continuing necessity that prosecutors and courts alike be “alert to repress” any abuses of the investigatory power invoked, bearing in mind that while grand juries “may proceed, either upon their own knowledge or upon the examination of witnesses, to inquire . . . whether a crime cognizable by the court has been committed,” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 65 (1906), yet “the most valuable function of the grand jury . . . [has been] not only to examine into the commission of crimes, but to stand between the- prosecutor and the accused,” id. at 59. Enforcement officials taking the initiative in grand-jury proceedings and courts charged with their superintendence should be sensitive to the considerations making for wise exercise of such investigatory power, not only where constitutional issues may be involved but also where the noncoercive assistance of other federal agencies may render it unnecessary to invoke the compulsive process of the grand jury.
The Fifth Amendment declares in part that “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This guarantee against testimonial compulsion, like other provisions of the Bill of Rights, “was added to the original Constitution in the conviction that too high a price may be paid even for the unhampered enforcement of the criminal law and that, in its attainment, other social objects of a free society should not be sacrificed.” Feldman v. United States, 322 U. S. 487, 489 (1944). This provision of the Amendment must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 562 (1892); Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71, 72-73 (1920).
The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime. (Patricia) Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 159 (1950). But this protection must be confined to instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. Mason v. United States, 244 U. S. 362, 365 (1917), and cases cited. The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself — his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367 (1951), and to require him to answer if “it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.” Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 899 (1881). However, if the witness, upon interposing his claim, were required to prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usually required to be established in court, he would be compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee. To sustain the privilege, it need only be' evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result. The trial judge in appraising the claim “must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.” See Taft, J., in Ex parte Irvine, 74 F. 954, 960 (C. C. S. D. Ohio, 1896).
What were the circumstances which the District Court should have considered in ruling upon petitioner’s claim of privilege? This is the background as indicated by the record:
The judge who ruled on the privilege had himself impaneled the special grand jury to investigate “rackets” in the district. He had explained to the jury that “the Attorney General’s office has come into this district to conduct an investigation . . . [that] will run the gamut of all crimes covered by federal statute.” “If rackets infest or encrust our system of government,” he instructed, “just as any blight attacks any other growth, it withers and dies. . . .” Subpoenas had issued for some twenty witnesses, but only eleven had been served; as the prosecutor put it, he was “having trouble finding some big shots.” Several of those who did appear and were called into the grand-jury room before petitioner had refused to answer questions until ordered to do so by the court. The prosecutor had requested bench warrants for eight of the nine who had not appeared the first day of the session, one of whom was William Weisberg. Petitioner had admitted having known Weisberg for about twenty years. In addition, counsel for petitioner had advised the court that “It has been broadly published that [petitioner] has a police record.”
The court should have considered, in connection with the business questions, that the chief occupation of some persons involves evasion of federal criminal laws, and that truthful answers by petitioner to these questions might have disclosed that he was engaged in such proscribed activity.
Also, the court should have recognized, in considering the Weisberg questions, that one person with a police record summoned to testify before a grand jury investigating the rackets might be hiding or helping to hide another person of questionable repute sought as a witness. To be sure, the Government may inquire of witnesses before the grand jury as to the whereabouts of unlocated witnesses ; ordinarily the answers to such questions are harmless if not fruitless. But of the seven questions relating to Weisberg (of.which three were answered), three were designed to draw information as to petitioner’s contacts and connection.with the fugitive witness; and the final question, perhaps an afterthought of the prosecutor, inquired of Weisberg’s whereabouts at- the time. All of them could easily have required answers that would forge links in a chain of facts imperiling petitioner with conviction of a federal crime. The three questions, if answered affirmatively, would establish contacts between petitioner and Weisberg during the crucial period when the latter was eluding the grand jury; and in the context of these inquiries the last question might well have called for disclosure that Weisberg was hiding away on petitioner’s premises or with his assistance. Petitioner could reasonably have sensed the peril of prosecution for federal offenses ranging from obstruction to conspiracy.
In this setting it was not “perfectly clear, from á careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the witness is mistaken, and that the answer [s] cannot possibly have such tendency” to incriminate. Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 898 (1881), cited with approval in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 579-580 (1892). See also, Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71 (1920).
This conclusion is buttressed by the supplemental record. It showed that petitioner had a twenty-year police record and had been publicly labeled an “underworld character and racketeer”; that the Senate Crime Investigating Committée had placed his name on a list of “known gangsters” from the Philadelphia area who had made Miami Beach their headquarters; that Philadelphia police officials had described him as “the king of the shore rackets who lives by the gun”; that he had served a sentence on a narcotics charge; and that his previous conviction was dramatized by a picture appearing in the local press while he was waiting to testify, in which petitioner was photographed with the head of the Philadelphia office of the United States Bureau of Narcotics in an accusing pose.
It appears that the petition which comprised the supplemental record, though captioned a “Petition for Reconsideration of Allowance of Bail Pending Appeal,” was by its terms an application to the District Court to vacate the contempt order on constitutional grounds, and alternatively a second motion for bail. Clearly this petition, filed but two weeks after the contempt order, was directed to the power of the committing court to discharge the contemnor for good cause — a power which courts should be solicitous to invoke when important constitutional objections are renewed. Cf. Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298 (1921). The ends of justice require discharge of one having such a right whenever facts appear sufficient to sustain the claim of privilege. Accordingly the supplemental record should have been considered by the Court of Appeals.
For these reasons we cannot agree with'the judgments below. If this result adds to the burden of diligence and efficiency resting on enforcement authorities, any other conclusion would seriously compromise an important constitutional liberty. “The immediate and potential evils of compulsory self-disclosure transcend any difficulties that the exercise of the privilege may impose on society in the detection and prosecution of crime.” United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, 698 (1944). Pertinent here is the observation of Mr. Justice Brandéis for this Court in McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34, 42 (1924): “If Congress should hereafter conclude that a full disclosure ... by the witnesses is of greater importance than the possibility of punishing them for some crime in the past, it can, as in other cases, confer the power of unrestricted examination by providing complete immunity.”
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Reed dissents. He agrees with the conclusions reached by Judges Goodrich and Kalodner as expressed in the opinion below.
(Patricia) Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 159 (1950); (Irving) Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 332 (1951); Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367 (1951); United States v. Greenberg, 187 F. 2d 35 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1951), petition for writ of certiorari pending. [See post, p. 944.]
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
For over 150 years this Court has applied the doctrine of patent exhaustion to limit the patent rights that survive the initial authorized sale of a patented item. In this case, we decide whether patent exhaustion applies to the sale of components of a patented system that must be combined with additional components in order to practice the patented methods. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the doctrine does not apply to method patents at all and, in the alternative, that it does not apply here because the sales were not authorized by the license agreement. We disagree on both scores. Because the exhaustion doctrine applies to method patents, and because the license authorizes the sale of components that substantially embody the patents in suit, the sale exhausted the patents.
I
Respondent LG Electronics, Inc. (LGE), purchased a portfolio of computer technology patents in 1999, including the three patents at issue here: U. S. Patent Nos. 4,939,641 (’641); 5,379,379 (’379); and 5,077,733 (’733) (collectively LGE Patents). The main functions of a computer system are carried out on a microprocessor, or central processing unit, which interprets program instructions, processes data, and controls other devices in the system. A set of wires, or bus, connects the microprocessor to a chipset, which transfers data between the microprocessor and other devices, including the keyboard, mouse, monitor, hard drive, memory, and disk drives.
The data processed by the computer are stored principally in random access memory, also called main memory. Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer Terms 334, 451 (8th ed. 2000). Frequently accessed data are generally stored in cache memory, which permits faster access than main memory and is often located on the microprocessor itself. Id., at 84. When copies of data are stored in both the cache and main memory, problems may arise when one copy is changed but the other still contains the original “stale” version of the data. J. Handy, Cache Memory Book 124 (2d ed. 1993). The ’641 patent addresses this problem. It discloses a system for ensuring that the most current data are retrieved from main memory by monitoring data requests and updating main memory from the cache when stale data are requested. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc., 453 F. 3d 1364, 1377 (CA Fed. 2006).
The ’379 patent relates to the coordination of requests to read from, and write to, main memory. Id., at 1378. Processing these requests in chronological order can slow down a system because read requests are faster to execute than write requests. Processing all read requests first ensures speedy access, but may result in the retrieval of outdated data if a read request for a certain piece of data is processed before an outstanding write request for the same data. The ’379 patent discloses an efficient method of organizing read and write requests while maintaining accuracy by allowing the computer to execute only read requests until it needs data for which there is an outstanding write request. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Asustek Computer, Inc., No. C 01-02187 CW etc., Order Construing Disputed Terms and Phrases, p. 42 (ND Cal., Aug. 20, 2002). Upon receiving such a read request, the computer executes pending write requests first and only then returns to the read requests so that the most up-to-date data are retrieved. Ibid.
The ’733 patent addresses the problem of managing the data traffic on a bus connecting two computer components, so that no one device monopolizes the bus. It allows multiple devices to share the bus, giving heavy users greater access. This patent describes methods that establish a rotating priority system under which each device alternately has priority access to the bus for a preset number of cycles and heavier users can maintain priority for more cycles without “hogging” the device indefinitely. Id., at 37-38.
LGE licensed a patent portfolio, including the LGE Patents, to Intel Corporation (Intel). The cross-licensing agreement (License Agreement) permits Intel to manufacture and sell microprocessors and chipsets that use the LGE Patents (Intel Products). The License Agreement authorizes Intel to “‘make, use, sell (directly or indirectly), offer to sell, import or otherwise dispose of’” its own products practicing the LGE Patents. Brief for Petitioners 8 (quoting App. 154). Notwithstanding this broad language, the License Agreement contains some limitations. Relevant here, it stipulates that no license
“ ‘is granted by either party hereto ... to any third party for the combination by a third party of Licensed Products of either party with items, components, or the like acquired . . . from sources other than a party hereto, or for the use, import, offer for sale or sale of such combination.’ ” Brief for Petitioners 8 (quoting App. 164).
The License Agreement purports not to alter the usual rules of patent exhaustion, however, providing that, “‘Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the parties agree that nothing herein shall in any way limit or alter the effect of patent exhaustion that would otherwise apply when a party hereto sells any of its Licensed Products.’” Brief for Petitioners 8 (quoting App. 164).
In a separate agreement (Master Agreement), Intel agreed to give written notice to its own customers informing them that, while it had obtained a broad license “ ‘ensuring] that any Intel product that you purchase is licensed by LGE and thus does not infringe any patent held by LGE,’ ” the license “ ‘does not extend, expressly or by implication, to any product that you make by combining an Intel product with any non-Intel product.’” Brief for Respondent 9 (quoting App. 198; emphasis deleted). The Master Agreement also provides that “ ‘a breach of this Agreement shall have no effect on and shall not be grounds for termination of the Patent License.’” Brief for Petitioners 9 (quoting App. 176).
Petitioners, including Quanta Computer (collectively Quanta), are a group of computer manufacturers. Quanta purchased microprocessors and chipsets from Intel and received the notice required by the Master Agreement. Nonetheless, Quanta manufactured computers using Intel parts in combination with non-Intel memory and buses in ways that practice the LGE Patents. Quanta does not modify the Intel components and follows Intel’s specifications to incorporate the parts into its own systems.
LGE filed a complaint against Quanta, asserting that the combination of the Intel Products with non-Intel memory and buses infringed the LGE Patents. The District Court granted summary judgment to Quanta, holding that, for purposes of the patent exhaustion doctrine, the license LGE granted to Intel resulted in forfeiture of any potential infringement actions against legitimate purchasers of the Intel Products. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Asustek Computer Inc., 65 USPQ 2d 1589, 1593, 1600 (ND Cal. 2002). The court found that, although the Intel Products do not fully practice any of the patents at issue, they have no reasonable noninfringing use and therefore their authorized sale exhausted patent rights in the completed computers under United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U. S. 241 (1942). Asustek, supra, at 1598-1600. In a subsequent order limiting its summary judgment ruling, the court held that patent exhaustion applies only to apparatus or composition-of-matter claims that describe a physical object, and does not apply to process, or method, claims that describe operations to make or use a product. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Asustek Com puter, Inc., 248 F. Supp. 2d 912, 918 (ND Cal. 2003). Because each of the LGE Patents includes method claims, exhaustion did not apply.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It agreed that the doctrine of patent exhaustion does not apply to method claims. In the alternative, it concluded that exhaustion did not apply because LGE did not license Intel to sell the Intel Products to Quanta for use in combination with non-Intel products. 453 F. 3d, at 1370.
We granted certiorari, 551 U. S. 1187 (2007).
II
The longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item. This Court first applied the doctrine in 19th-century cases addressing patent extensions on the Woodworth planing machine. Purchasers of licenses to sell and use the machine for the duration of the original patent term sought to continue using the licenses through the extended term. The Court held that the extension of the patent term did not affect the rights already secured by purchasers who bought the item for use “in the ordinary pursuits of life.” Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 549 (1853); see also ibid. (“[W]hen the machine passes to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly”); Bloomer v. Millinger, 1 Wall. 340, 351 (1864). In Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453 (1873), the Court affirmed the dismissal of a patent holder’s suit alleging that a licensee had violated postsale restrictions on where patented coffin lids could be used. “[W]here a person ha[s] purchased a patented machine of the patentee or his assignee,” the Court held, “this purchase carrie[s] with it the right to the use of that machine so long as it [is] capable of use.” Id., at 455.
Although the Court permitted postsale restrictions on the use of a patented article in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1 (1912), that decision was short lived. In 1913, the Court refused to apply A. B. Dick to uphold price-fixing provisions in a patent license. See Bauer & Cie v. O’Donnell, 229 U. S. 1,14-17 (1913). Shortly thereafter, in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U. S. 502,518 (1917), the Court explicitly overruled A. B. Dick. In that case, a patent holder attempted to limit purchasers’ use of its film projectors to show only film made under a patent held by the same company. The Court noted the “increasing frequency” with which patent holders were using A. B. Dick-style licenses to limit the use of their products and thereby using the patents to secure market control of related, unpatented items. 243 U. S., at 509, 516-517. Observing that “the primary purpose of our patent laws is not the creation of private fortunes for the owners of patents but is ‘to promote the progress of science and useful arts,’” id., at 511 (quoting U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8), the Court held that “the scope of the grant which may be made to an inventor in a patent, pursuant to the [patent] statute, must be limited to the invention described in the claims of his patent,” 243 U. S., at 511. Accordingly, it reiterated the rule that “the right to vend is exhausted by a single, unconditional sale, the article sold being thereby carried outside the monopoly of the patent law and rendered free of every restriction which the vendor may attempt to put upon it.” Id., at 516.
This Court most recently discussed patent exhaustion in Univis, 316 U. S. 241, on which the District Court relied. Univis Lens Company, the holder of patents on eyeglass lenses, licensed a purchaser to manufacture lens blanks by fusing together different lens segments to create bi- and trifocal lenses and to sell them to other Univis licensees at agreed-upon rates. Wholesalers were licensed to grind the blanks into the patented finished lenses, which they would then sell to Univis-licensed prescription retailers for resale at a fixed rate. Finishing retailers, after grinding the blanks into patented lenses, would sell the finished lenses to consumers at the same fixed rate. The United States sued Univis under the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1,3,15, alleging unlawful restraints on trade. Univis asserted its patent monopoly rights as a defense to the antitrust suit. The Court granted certiorari to determine whether Univis’ patent monopoly survived the sale of the lens blanks by the licensed manufacturer and therefore shielded Univis’ pricing scheme from the Sherman Act.
The Court assumed that the Univis patents containing claims for finished lenses were practiced in part by the wholesalers and finishing retailers who ground the blanks into lenses, and held that the sale of the lens blanks exhausted the patents on the finished lenses. Univis, 316 U. S., at 248-249. The Court explained that the lens blanks “embodied] essential features of the patented device and [were] without utility until . . . ground and polished as the finished lens of the patent.” Id., at 249. The Court noted that
“where one has sold an uncompleted article which, because it embodies essential features of his patented invention, is within the protection of his patent, and has destined the article to be finished by the purchaser in conformity to the patent, he has sold his invention so far as it is or may be embodied in that particular article.” Id., at 250-251.
In sum, the Court concluded that the traditional bar on patent restrictions following the sale of an item applies when the item sufficiently embodies the patent — even if it does not completely practice the patent — such that its only and intended use is to be finished under the terms of the patent.
With this history of the patent exhaustion doctrine in mind, we turn to the parties’ arguments.
Ill
A
LGE argues that the exhaustion doctrine is inapplicable here because it does not apply to method claims, which are contained in each of the LGE Patents. LGE reasons that, because method patents are linked not to a tangible article but to a process, they can never be exhausted through a sale. Rather, practicing the patent — which occurs upon each use of an article embodying a method patent — is permissible only to the extent rights are transferred in an assignment contract. Quanta, in turn, argues that there is no reason to preclude exhaustion of method claims, and points out that both this Court and the Federal Circuit have applied exhaustion to method claims. It argues that any other rule would allow patent holders to avoid exhaustion entirely by inserting method claims in their patent specifications.
Quanta has the better of this argument. Nothing in this Court’s approach to patent exhaustion supports LGE’s argument that method patents cannot be exhausted. It is true that a patented method may not be sold in the same way as an article or device, but methods nonetheless may be “embodied” in a product, the sale of which exhausts patent rights. Our precedents do not differentiate transactions involving embodiments of patented methods or processes from those involving patented apparatuses or materials. To the contrary, this Court has repeatedly held that method patents were exhausted by the sale of an item that embodied the method. In Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U. S. 436, 446, 457 (1940), for example, the Court held that the sale of a motor fuel produced under one patent also exhausted the patent for a method of using the fuel in combustion motors. Similarly, as previously described, Univis held that the sale of optical lens blanks that partially practiced a patent exhausted the method patents that were not completely practiced until the blanks were ground into lenses. 316 U. S., at 248-251.
These cases rest on solid footing. Eliminating exhaustion for method patents would seriously undermine the exhaustion doctrine. Patentees seeking to avoid patent exhaustion could simply draft their patent claims to describe a method rather than an apparatus. Apparatus and method claims “may approach each other so nearly that it will be difficult to distinguish the process from the function of the apparatus.” United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 559 (1904). By characterizing their claims as method instead of apparatus claims, or including a method claim for the machine’s patented method of performing its task, a patent drafter could shield practically any patented item from exhaustion.
This case illustrates the danger of allowing such an end-run around exhaustion. On LGE’s theory, although Intel is authorized to sell a completed computer system that practices the LGE Patents, any downstream purchasers of the system could nonetheless be liable for patent infringement. Such a result would violate the longstanding principle that, when a patented item is “once lawfully made and sold, there is no restriction on [its] use to be implied for the benefit of the patentee.” Adams, 17 Wall., at 457. We therefore reject LGE’s argument that method claims, as a category, are never exhaustible.
B
We next consider the extent to which a product must embody a patent in order to trigger exhaustion. Quanta argues that, although sales of an incomplete article do not necessarily exhaust the patent in that article, the sale of the microprocessors and chipsets exhausted LGE’s patents in the same way the sale of the lens blanks exhausted the patents in Univis. Just as the lens blanks in Univis did not fully practice the patents at issue because they had not been ground into finished lenses, Quanta observes, the Intel Products cannot practice the LGE Patents — or indeed, function at all — until they are combined with memory and buses in a computer system. If, as in Univis, patent rights are exhausted by the sale of the incomplete item, then LGE has no postsale right to require that the patents be practiced using only Intel parts. Quanta also argues that exhaustion doctrine will be a dead letter unless it is triggered by the sale of components that essentially, even if not completely, embody an invention. Otherwise, patent holders could authorize the sale of computers that are complete with the exception of one minor step — say, inserting the microprocessor into a socket — and extend their rights through each downstream purchaser all the way to the end user.
LGE, for its part, argues that Univis is inapplicable here for three reasons. First, it maintains that Univis should be limited to products that contain all the physical aspects needed to practice the patent. On that theory, the Intel Products cannot embody the patents because additional physical components are required before the patents can be practiced. Second, LGE asserts that in Univis there was no “patentable distinction” between the lens blanks and the patented finished lenses since they were both subject to the same patent. Brief for Respondent 14 (citing Univis, supra, at 248-252). In contrast, it describes the Intel Products as “independent and distinct products” from the systems using the LGE Patents and subject to “independent patents.” Brief for Respondent 13. Finally, LGE argues that Univis does not apply because the Intel Products are analogous to individual elements of a combination patent, and allowing sale of those components to exhaust the patent would impermissibly “ascrib[e] to one element of the patented combination the status of [the] patented invention in itself.” Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U. S. 336, 344-345 (1961).
We agree with Quanta that Univis governs this case. As the Court there explained, exhaustion was triggered by the sale of the lens blanks because their only reasonable and intended use was to practice the patent and because they “embodied] essential features of [the] patented invention.” 316 U. S., at 249-251. Each of those attributes is shared by the microprocessors and chipsets Intel sold to Quanta under the License Agreement.
First, Univis held that “the authorized sale of an article which is capable of use only in practicing the patent is a relinquishment of the patent monopoly with respect to the article sold.” Id., at 249. The lens blanks in Univis met this standard because they were “without utility until [they were] ground and polished as the finished lens of the patent.” Ibid. Accordingly, “the only object of the sale [was] to enable the [finishing retailer] to grind and polish it for use as a lens by the prospective wearer.” Ibid. Here, LGE has suggested no reasonable use for the Intel Products other than incorporating them into computer systems that practice the LGE Patents. Nor can we discern one: A microprocessor or chipset cannot function until it is connected to buses and memory. And here, as in Univis, the only apparent object of Intel’s sales to Quanta was to permit Quanta to incorporate the Intel Products into computers that would practice the patents.
Second, the lens blanks in Univis “embodiefd] essential features of [the] patented invention.” Id., at 250-251. The essential, or inventive, feature of the Univis lens patents was the fusing together of different lens segments to create bi- and trifocal lenses. The finishing process performed by the finishing and prescription retailers after the fusing was not unique. As the United States explained:
“The finishing licensees finish Univis lens blanks in precisely the same manner as they finish all other bifocal lens blanks. Indeed, appellees have never contended that their licensing system is supported by patents covering methods or processes relating to the finishing of lens blanks. Consequently, it appears that appellees perform all of the operations which contribute any claimed element of novelty to Univis lenses.” Brief for United States in United States v. Univis Lens Co., O. T. 1941, No. 855 etc., p. 10 (footnote and citations omitted).
While the Court assumed that the finishing process was covered by the patents, Univis, supra, at 248-249, and the District Court found that it was necessary to make a working lens, United States v. Univis Lens Co., 41 F. Supp. 258, 262-263 (SDNY 1941), the grinding process was not central to the patents. That standard process was not included in detail in any of the patents and was not referred to at all in two of the patents. Those that did mention the finishing process treated it as incidental to the invention, noting, for example, that “[t]he blank is then ground in the usual manner,” U. S. Patent No. 1,876,497, p. 2, or simply that the blank is “then ground and polished,” U. S. Patent No. 1,632,208, p. 1, Tr. of Record in United States v. Univis Lens Co., O. T. 1941, No. 855 etc., pp. 516, 498.
Like the Univis lens blanks, the Intel Products constitute a material part of the patented invention and all but completely practice the patent. Here, as in Univis, the incomplete article substantially embodies the patent because the only step necessary to practice the patent is the application of common processes or the addition of standard parts. Everything inventive about each patent is embodied in the Intel Products. They control access to main and cache memory, practicing the ’641 and ’379 patents by checking cache memory against main memory and comparing read and write requests. They also control priority of bus access by various other computer components under the ’733 patent. Naturally, the Intel Products cannot carry out these functions unless they are attached to memory and buses, but those additions are standard components in the system, providing the material that enables the microprocessors and chipsets to function. The Intel Products were specifically designed to function only when memory or buses are attached; Quanta was not required to make any creative or inventive decision when it added those parts. Indeed, Quanta had no alternative but to follow Intel’s specifications in incorporating the Intel Products into its computers because it did not know their internal structure, which Intel guards as a trade secret. Brief for Petitioners 3. Intel all but practiced the patent itself by designing its products to practice the patents, lacking only the addition of standard parts.
We are unpersuaded by LGE’s attempts to distinguish Univis. First, there is no reason to distinguish the two cases on the ground that the articles in Univis required the removal of material to practice the patent while the Intel Products require the addition of components to practice the patent. LGE characterizes the lens blanks and lenses as sharing a “basic nature” by virtue of their physical similarity, while the Intel Products embody only some of the “patentably distinct elements and steps” involved in the LGE Patents. Brief for Respondent 26-27. But we think that the nature of the final step, rather than whether it consists of adding or deleting material, is the relevant characteristic. In each case, the final step to practice the patent is common and noninventive: grinding a lens to the customer’s prescription, or connecting a microprocessor or chipset to buses or memory. The Intel Products embody the essential features of the LGE Patents because they carry out all the inventive processes when combined, according to their design, with standard components.
With regard to LGE’s argument that exhaustion does not apply across patents, we agree on the general principle: The sale of a device that practices patent A does not, by virtue of practicing patent A, exhaust patent B. But if the device practices patent A while substantially embodying patent B, its relationship to patent A does not prevent exhaustion of patent B. For example, if the Univis lens blanks had been composed of shatter-resistant glass under patent A, the blanks would nonetheless have substantially embodied, and therefore exhausted, patent B for the finished lenses. This case is no different. While each Intel microprocessor and chipset practices thousands of individual patents, including some LGE patents not at issue in this case, the exhaustion analysis is not altered by the fact that more than one patent is practiced by the same product. The relevant consideration is whether the Intel Products that partially practice a patent — by, for example, embodying its essential features— exhaust that patent.
Finally, LGE’s reliance on Aro is misplaced because that case dealt only with the question whether replacement of one part of a patented combination infringes the patent. First, the replacement question is not at issue here. Second, and more importantly, Aro is not squarely applicable to the exhaustion of patents like the LGE Patents that do not disclose a new combination of existing parts. Aro described combination patents as “covering] only the totality of the elements in the claim [so] that no element, separately viewed, is within the grant.” 365 U. S., at 344; see also Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661, 667-668 (1944) (noting that, in a combination patent, “the combination is the invention and it is distinct from any” of its elements). Aro’s warning that no element can be viewed as central to or equivalent to the invention is specific to the context in which the combination itself is the only inventive aspect of the patent. In this case, the inventive part of the patent is not the fact that memory and buses are combined with a microprocessor or chipset; rather, it is included in the design of the Intel Products themselves and the way these products access the memory or bus.
C
Having concluded that the Intel Products embodied the patents, we next consider whether their sale to Quanta exhausted LGE’s patent rights. Exhaustion is triggered only by a sale authorized by the patent holder. Univis, 316 U. S., at 249.
LGE argues that there was no authorized sale here because the License Agreement does not permit Intel to sell its products for use in combination with non-Intel products to practice the LGE Patents. It cites General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co., 304 U. S. 175 (1938), and General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co., 305 U. S. 124 (1938), in which the manufacturer sold patented amplifiers for commercial use, thereby breaching a license that limited the buyer to selling the amplifiers for private and home use. The Court held that exhaustion did not apply because the manufacturer had no authority to sell the amplifiers for commercial use, and the manufacturer “could not convey to petitioner what both knew it was not authorized to sell.” 304 U. S., at 181. LGE argues that the same principle applies here: Intel could not convey to Quanta what both knew it was not authorized to sell, i. e., the right to practice the patents with non-Intel parts.
LGE overlooks important aspects of the structure of the Intel-LGE transaction. Nothing in the License Agreement restricts Intel’s right to sell its microprocessors and chipsets to purchasers who intend to combine them with non-Intel parts. It broadly permits Intel to “‘make, use, [or] sell’” products free of LGE’s patent claims. Brief for Petitioners 8 (quoting App. 154). To be sure, LGE did require Intel to give notice to its customers, including Quanta, that LGE had not licensed those customers to practice its patents. But neither party contends that Intel breached the agreement in that respect. Brief for Petitioners 9; Brief for Respondent 9. In any event, the provision requiring notice to Quanta appeared only in the Master Agreement, and LGE does not suggest that a breach of that agreement would constitute a breach of the License Agreement. Hence, Intel’s authority to sell its products embodying the LGE Patents was not conditioned on the notice or on Quanta’s decision to abide by LGE’s directions in that notice.
LGE points out that the License Agreement specifically disclaimed any license to third parties to practice the patents by combining licensed products with other components. Brief for Petitioners 8. But the question whether third parties received implied licenses is irrelevant because Quanta asserts its right to practice the patents based not on implied license but on exhaustion. And exhaustion turns only on Intel’s own license to sell products practicing the LGE Patents.
Alternatively, LGE invokes the principle that patent exhaustion does not apply to postsale restrictions on “making” an article. Brief for Respondent 43. But this is simply a rephrasing of its argument that combining the Intel Products with other components adds more than standard finishing to complete a patented article. As explained above, making a product that substantially embodies a patent is, for exhaustion purposes, no different from making the patented article itself. In other words, no further “making” results from the addition of standard parts — here, the buses and memory — to a product that already substantially embodies the patent.
The License Agreement authorized Intel to sell products that practiced the LGE Patents. No conditions limited Intel’s authority to sell products substantially embodying the patents. Because Intel was authorized to sell its products to Quanta, the doctrine of patent exhaustion prevents LGE from further asserting its patent rights with respect to the patents substantially embodied by those products.
IV
The authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder’s rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control post-sale use of the article. Here, LGE licensed Intel to practice any of its patents and to sell products practicing those patents. Intel’s microprocessors and chipsets substantially embodied the LGE Patents because they had no reasonable non-infringing use and included all the inventive aspects of the patented methods. Nothing in the License Agreement limited Intel’s ability to sell its products practicing the LGE Patents. Intel’s authorized sale to Quanta thus took its products outside the scope of the patent monopoly, and as a result, LGE can no longer assert its patent rights against Quanta. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
App. 145-198 is sealed; where material contained therein also appears in the parties’ unsealed briefs, citations are to the latter.
The A. B. Dick Company sold mimeograph machines with an attached license stipulating that the machine could be used only with ink, paper, and other supplies made by the A. B. Dick Company. The Court rejected the notion that a patent holder “can only keep the article within the control of the patent by retaining the title,” A. B. Dick, 224 U. S., at 18, and held that “any ... reasonable stipulation, not inherently violative of some substantive law,” was “valid and enforceable,” id., at 31. The only requirement, the Court held, was that “the purchaser must have notice that he buys with only a qualified right of use,” so that a sale made without conditions resulted in “an unconditional title to the machine, with no limitations upon the use.” Id., at 26.
Lens blanks are “rough opaque pieces of glass of suitable size, design and composition for use, when ground and polished, as multifocal lenses in eyeglasses.” Univis, 316 U. S., at 244.
The patentee held patents for (1) a fluid additive increasing gasoline efficiency, (2) motor fuel produced by mixing gasoline with the patented fluid, and (3) a method of using fuel containing the patented fluid in combustion motors. Ethyl Gasoline Corp., 309 U. S., at 446. The patentee sold only the fluid, but attempted to control sales of the treated fuel. Id., at 459. The Court held that the sale of the fluid to refiners relinquished the patentee’s exclusive rights to sell the treated fuel. Id., at 457.
One commentator recommends this strategy as a way to draft patent claims that “will survive numerous transactions regarding the patented good, allowing the force of the patent to intrude deeply into the stream of commerce.” Thomas, Of Text, Technique, and the Tangible: Drafting Patent Claims Around Patent Rules, 17 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 219,252 (1998); see also id., at 225-226 (advocating the conversion of apparatus claims into method claims and noting that “[e]ven the most novice claims drafter would encounter scant difficulty in converting a patent claim from artifact to technique and back again”).
LGE suggests that the Intel Products would not infringe its patents if they were sold overseas, used as replacement parts, or engineered so that use with non-Intel products would disable their patented features. Brief for Respondent 21-22, n. 10. But Univis teaches that the question is whether the product is “capable of use only in practicing the patent,” not whether those uses are infringing. 316 U. S., at 249 (emphasis added). Whether outside the country or functioning as replacement parts, the Intel Products would still be practicing the patent, even if not infringing it. And since the features partially practicing the patent are what must have an alternative use, suggesting that they be disabled is no solution. The disabled features would have no real use.
We note that the authorized nature of the sale to Quanta does not necessarily limit LGE’s other contract rights. LGE’s complaint does not include a breaeh-of-eontract claim, and we express no opinion on whether contract damages might be available even though exhaustion operates to eliminate patent damages. See Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co., 157 U. S. 659, 666 (1895) (‘Whether a patentee may protect himself and his assignees by special contracts brought home to the purchasers is not a question before us, and upon which we express no opinion. It is, however, obvious that such a question would arise as a question of contract, and not as one under the inherent meaning and effect of the patent laws”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Certiorari, 350 U. S. 817, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Argued January 16, 1956. Decided April 2, 1956.
Per Curiam:
The Court is of the opinion that the District Court correctly found there was proper service upon the defendant in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that Court for further proceedings.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
As amended by order entered April 9, 1956, post, p. 1012.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that our precedents clearly establish that a prisoner is in custody within the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), if the prisoner is taken aside and questioned about events that occurred outside the prison walls. Our decisions, however, do not clearly establish such a rule, and therefore the Court of Appeals erred in holding that this rule provides a permissible basis for federal habeas relief under the relevant provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). Indeed, the rule applied by the court below does not represent a correct interpretation of our Miranda case law. We therefore reverse.
I
While serving a sentence in a Michigan jail, Randall Fields was escorted by a corrections officer to a conference room where two sheriff’s deputies questioned him about allegations that, before he came to prison, he had engaged in sexual conduct with a 12-year-old boy. In order to get to the conference room, Fields had to go down one floor and pass through a locked door that separated two sections of the fa-eility. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 66a, 69a. Fields arrived at the conference room between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. and was questioned for between five and seven hours.
At the beginning of the interview, Fields was told that he was free to leave and return to his cell. See id., at 70a. Later, he was again.told that he could leave whenever he wanted. See id., at 90a. The two interviewing deputies were armed during the interview, but Fields remained free of handcuffs and other restraints. The door to the conference room was sometimes open and sometimes shut. See id., at 70a-75a.
About halfway through the interview, after Fields had been confronted with the allegations of abuse, he became agitated and began to yell. See id., at 80a, 125a. Fields testified that one of the deputies, using an expletive, told him to sit down and said that “if [he] didn’t want to cooperate, [he] could leave.” Id., at 89a; see also id., at 70a-71a. Fields eventually confessed to engaging in sex acts with the boy. According to Fields’ testimony at a suppression hearing, he said several times during the interview that he no longer wanted to talk to the deputies, but he did not ask to go back to his cell prior to the end of the interview. See id., at 92a-93a.
When he was eventually ready to leave, he had to wait an additional 20 minutes or so because a corrections officer had to be summoned to escort him back to his cell, and he did not return to his cell until well after the hour when he generally retired. At no time was Fields given Miranda warnings or advised that he did not have to speak with the deputies.
The State of Michigan charged Fields with criminal sexual conduct. Relying on Miranda, Fields moved to suppress his confession, but the trial court denied his motion. Over the renewed objection of defense counsel, one of the interviewing deputies testified at trial about Fields’ admissions. The jury convicted Fields of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, and the judge sentenced him to a term of 10 to 15 years of imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Fields’ contention that his statements should have been suppressed because he was subjected to custodial interrogation without a Miranda warning. The court ruled that Fields had not been in custody for purposes of Miranda during the interview, so no Miranda warnings were required. The court emphasized that Fields was told that he was free to leave and return to his cell but that he never asked to do so. The Michigan Supreme Court denied discretionary review.
Fields then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court, and the court granted relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the interview in the conference room was a “custodial interrogation” within the meaning of Miranda because isolation from the general prison population combined with questioning about conduct occurring outside the prison makes any such interrogation custodial per se. The Court of Appeals reasoned that this Court clearly established in Mathis v. United States, 391 U. S. 1 (1968), that “Miranda warnings must be administered when law enforcement officers remove an inmate from the general prison population and interrogate him regarding criminal conduct that took place outside the jail or prison.” 617 F. 3d 813, 820 (CA6 2010); see also id., at 818 (“The central holding of Mathis is that a Miranda warning is required whenever an incarcerated individual is isolated from the general prison population and interrogated, i. e.[,] questioned in a manner likely to lead to self-incrimination, about conduct occurring outside of the prison”). Because Fields was isolated from the general prison population and interrogated about conduct occurring in the outside world, the Court of Appeals found that the state court’s decision was contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by this Court in Mathis. 617 F. 3d, at 823.
We granted certiorari. 562 U. S. 1199 (2011).
II
Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant a state prisoner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus if the state-court adjudication pursuant to which the prisoner is held “resulted in a decision that 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). In this context, “clearly established law” signifies “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s decisions.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 412 (2000).
In this case, it is abundantly clear that our precedents do not clearly establish the categorical rule on which the Court of Appeals relied, i. e., that the questioning of a prisoner is always custodial when the prisoner is removed from the general prison population and questioned about events that occurred outside the prison. On the contrary, we have repeatedly declined to adopt any categorical rule with respect to whether the questioning of a prison inmate is custodial.
In Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U. S. 292 (1990), where we upheld the admission of un-Mirandized statements elicited from an inmate by an undercover officer masquerading as another inmate, we noted that “[t]he bare fact of custody may not in every instance require a warning even when the suspect is aware that he is speaking to an official, but we do not have occasion to explore that issue here.” Id., at 299 (emphasis added). Instead, we simply “rejected] the argument that Miranda warnings are required whenever a suspect is in custody in a technical sense and converses with someone who happens to be a government agent.” Id., at 297.
Most recently, in Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U. S. 98 (2010), we expressly declined to adopt a bright-line rule for determining the applicability of Miranda in prisons. Shatzer considered whether a break in custody ends the presumption of involuntariness established in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 (1981), and, if so, whether a prisoner’s return to the general prison population after a custodial interrogation constitutes a break in Miranda custody. See 559 U. S., at 102-103. In considering the latter question, we noted first that “[w]e have never decided whether incarceration constitutes custody for Miranda purposes, and have indeed explicitly declined to address the issue.” Id., at 112 (citing Perkins, supra, at 299; emphasis added). The answer to this question, we noted, would “depen[d] upon whether [incarceration] exerts the coercive pressure that Miranda was designed to guard against — the ‘danger of coercion [that] results from the interaction of custody and official interrogation.’” 559 U. S., at 112 (quoting Perkins, supra, at 297).
In concluding that our precedents establish a categorical rule, the Court of Appeals placed great weight on the decision in Mathis, but the Court of Appeals misread the holding in that case. In Mathis, an inmate in a state prison was questioned by an Internal Revenue agent and was subsequently convicted for federal offenses. The Court of Appeals held that Miranda did not apply to this interview for two reasons: A criminal investigation had not been commenced at the time of the interview, and the prisoner was incarcerated for an “unconnected offense.” Mathis v. United States, 376 F. 2d 595, 597 (CA5 1967). This Court rejected both of those grounds for distinguishing Miranda, see 391 U. S., at 4, and thus the holding in Mathis is simply that a prisoner who otherwise meets the requirements for Miranda custody is not taken outside the scope of Miranda by either of the two factors on which the Court of Appeals had relied. Mathis did not hold that imprisonment, in and of itself, is enough to constitute Miranda custody. Nor, contrary to respondent’s submission, see Brief for Respondent 14, did Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U. S. 492, 494 (1977) (per curiam), which simply restated in dictum the holding in Mathis.
The Court of Appeals purported to find support for its per se rule in Shatzer, relying on our statement that “[n]o one questions that Shatzer was in custody for Miranda purposes” when he was interviewed. 559 U. S., at 112. But this statement means only that the issue of custody was not contested before us. It strains credulity to read the statement as constituting an “unambiguous conclusion” or “finding” by this Court that Shatzer was in custody. 617 F. 3d, at 822.
Finally, contrary to respondent’s suggestion, see Brief for Respondent 12-15, Miranda itself did not clearly establish the rule applied by the Court of Appeals. Miranda adopted a “set of prophylactic measures” designed to ward off the “‘inherently compelling pressures’ of custodial interrogation,” Shatzer, supra, at 103 (quoting Miranda, 384 U. S., at 467), but Miranda did not hold that such pressures are always present when a prisoner is taken aside and questioned about events outside the prison walls. Indeed, Miranda did not even establish that police questioning of a suspect at the station house is always custodial. See Mathiason, supra, at 495 (declining to find that Miranda warnings are required “simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect”).
In sum, our decisions do not clearly establish that a prisoner is always in custody for purposes of Miranda whenever a prisoner is isolated from the general prison population and questioned about conduct outside the prison.
I — 1 b-i hH
Not only does the categorical rule applied below go well beyond anything that is clearly established in our prior decisions, it is simply wrong. The three elements of that rule— (1) imprisonment, (2) questioning in private, and (3) questioning about events in the outside world — are not necessarily enough to create a custodial situation for Miranda purposes.
A
As used in our Miranda case law, “custody” is a term of art that specifies circumstances that are thought generally to present a serious danger of coercion. In determining whether a person is in custody in this sense, the initial step is to ascertain whether, in light of “the objective circumstances of the interrogation,” Stansbury v. California, 511 U. S. 318, 322-323, 325 (1994) (per curiam), a “reasonable person [would] have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Thompson v. Keo-hane, 516 U. S. 99, 112 (1995). And in order to determine how a suspect would have “gauge[d]” his “freedom of movement,” courts must examine “all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation.” Stansbury, supra, at 322, 325 (internal quotation marks omitted). Relevant factors include the location of the questioning, see Shatzer, supra, at 112-114, its duration, see Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 437-438 (1984), statements made during the interview, see Mathiason, supra, at 495; Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U. S. 652, 665 (2004); Stansbury, supra, at 325, the presence or absence of physical restraints during the questioning, see New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 655 (1984), and the release of the interviewee at the end of the questioning, see California v. Beheler, 463 U. S. 1121, 1122-1123 (1983) (per curiam).
Determining whether an individual's freedom of movement was curtailed, however, is simply the first step in the analysis, not the last. Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda. We have “decline[d] to accord talismanic power” to the freedom-of-movement inquiry, Berkemer, supra, at 437, and have instead asked the additional question whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda. “Our cases make clear... that the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.” Shatzer, supra, at 112.
This important point is illustrated by our decision in Ber-kemer v. McCarty, supra. In that case, we held that the roadside questioning of a motorist who was pulled over in a routine traffic stop did not constitute custodial interrogation. Id., at 423, 441-442. We acknowledged that “a traffic stop significantly curtails the ‘freedom of action’ of the driver and the passengers,” and that it is generally “a crime either to ignore a policeman’s signal to stop one’s car or, once having stopped, to drive away without permission.” Id., at 436. “[F]ew motorists,” we noted, “would feel free either to disobey a directive to pull over or to leave the scene of a traffic stop without being told they might do so.” Ibid. Nevertheless, we held that a person detained as a result of a traffic stop is not in Miranda custody because such detention does not “sufficiently impair [the detained person’s] free exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights.” 468 U. S., at 437. As we later put it, the “temporary and relatively nonthreatening detention involved in a traffic stop or Terry stop does not constitute Miranda custody,” Shatzer, 559 U. S., at 113 (citation omitted). See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968).
It may be thought that the situation in Berkemer — the questioning of a motorist subjected to a brief traffic stop — is worlds away from those present when an inmate is questioned in a prison, but the same cannot be said of Shatzer, where we again distinguished between restraints on freedom of movement and Miranda custody. Shatzer, as noted, concerned the Edwards prophylactic rule, which limits the ability of the police to initiate further questioning of a suspect in Miranda custody once the suspect invokes the right to counsel. We held in Shatzer that this rule does not apply when there is a sufficient break in custody between the suspect’s invocation of the right to counsel and the initiation of subsequent questioning. See 559 U. S., at 112-114. And, what is significant for present purposes, we further held that a break in custody may occur while a suspect is serving a term in prison. If a break in custody can occur while a prisoner is serving an uninterrupted term of imprisonment, it must follow that imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda.
There are at least three strong grounds for this conclusion. First, questioning a person who is already serving a prison term does not generally involve the shock that very often accompanies arrest. In the paradigmatic Miranda situation— a person is arrested in his home or on the street and whisked to a police station for questioning — detention represents a sharp and ominous change, and the shock may give rise to coercive pressures. A person who is “cut off from his normal life and companions,” Shatzer, supra, at 106, and abruptly transported from the street into a “police-dominated atmosphere,” Miranda, 384 U. S., at 466, may feel coerced into answering questions.
By contrast, when a person who is already serving a term of imprisonment is questioned, there is usually no such change. “Interrogated suspects who have previously been convicted of crime live in prison.” Shatzer, 559 U. S., at 113. For a person serving a term of incarceration, we reasoned in Shatzer, the ordinary restrictions of prison life, while no doubt unpleasant, are expected and familiar and thus do not involve the same “inherently compelling pressures” that are often present when a suspect is yanked from familiar surroundings in the outside world and subjected to interrogation in a police station. Id., at 103 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Second, a prisoner, unlike a person who has not been sentenced to a term of incarceration, is unlikely to be lured into speaking by a longing for prompt release. When a person is arrested and taken to a station house for interrogation, the person who is questioned may be pressured to speak by the hope that, after doing so, he will be allowed to leave and go home. On the other hand, when a prisoner is questioned, he knows that when the questioning ceases, he will remain under confinement. Id., at 124, n. 8.
Third, a prisoner, unlike a person who has not been convicted and sentenced, knows that the law enforcement officers who question him probably lack the authority to affect the duration of his sentence. Id., at 113-114. And “where the possibility of parole exists,” the interrogating officers probably also lack the power to bring about an early release. Ibid. “When the suspect has no reason to think that the listeners have official power over him, it should not be assumed that his words are motivated by the reaction he expects from his listeners.” Perkins, 496 U. S., at 297. Under such circumstances, there is little “basis for the assumption that a suspect . . . will feel compelled to speak by the fear of reprisal for remaining silent or in the hope of [a] more lenient treatment should he confess.” Id., at 296-297.
In short, standard conditions of confinement and associated restrictions on freedom will not necessarily implicate the same interests that the Court sought to protect when it afforded special safeguards to persons subjected to custodial interrogation. Thus, service of a term of imprisonment, without more, is not enough to constitute Miranda custody.
B
The two other elements included in the Court of Appeals’ rule — questioning in private and questioning about events that took place outside the prison — are likewise insufficient.
Taking a prisoner aside for questioning — as opposed to questioning the prisoner in the presence of fellow inmates— does not necessarily convert a “noncustodial situation ... to one in which Miranda applies.” Mathiason, 429 U. S., at 495. When a person who is not serving a prison term is questioned, isolation may contribute to a coercive atmosphere by preventing family members, friends, and others who may be sympathetic from providing either advice or emotional support. And without any such assistance, the person who is questioned may feel overwhelming pressure to speak and to refrain from asking that the interview be terminated.
By contrast, questioning a prisoner in private does not generally remove the prisoner from a supportive atmosphere. Fellow inmates are by no means necessarily friends. On the contrary, they may be hostile and, for a variety of reasons, may react negatively to what the questioning reveals. In the present case, for example, would respondent have felt more at ease if he had been questioned in the presence of other inmates about the sexual abuse of an adolescent boy? Isolation from the general prison population is often in the best interest of the interviewee and, in any event, does not suggest on its own the atmosphere of coercion that concerned the Court in Miranda.
It is true that taking a prisoner aside for questioning may necessitate some additional limitations on his freedom of movement. A prisoner may, for example, be removed from an exercise yard and taken, under close guard, to the room where the interview is to be held. But such procedures are an ordinary and familiar attribute of life behind bars. Escorts and special security precautions may be standard procedures regardless of the purpose for which an inmate is removed from his regular routine and taken to a special location. For example, ordinary prison procedure may require such measures when a prisoner is led to a meeting with an attorney.
Finally, we fail to see why questioning about criminal activity outside the prison should be regarded as having a significantly greater potential for coercion than questioning under otherwise identical circumstances about criminal activity within the prison walls. In both instances, there is the potential for additional criminal liability and punishment. If anything, the distinction would seem to cut the other way, as an inmate who confesses to misconduct that occurred within the prison may also incur administrative penalties, but even this is not enough to tip the scale in the direction of custody. “The threat to a citizen’s Fifth Amendment rights that Miranda was designed to neutralize” is neither mitigated nor magnified by the location of the conduct about which questions are asked. Berkemer, 468 U. S., at 435, n. 22.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals’ categorical rule is unsound.
IV
A
When a prisoner is questioned, the determination of custody should focus on all of the features of the interrogation. These include the language that is used in summoning the prisoner to the interview and the manner in which the interrogation is conducted. See Yarborough, 541 U. S., at 665. An inmate who is removed from the general prison population for questioning and is “thereafter ... subjected to treatment” in connection with the interrogation “that renders him ‘in custody’ for practical purposes . . . will be entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda.” Berkemer, 468 U. S., at 440.
“Fidelity to the doctrine announced in Miranda requires that it be enforced strictly, but only in those types of situations in which the concerns that powered the decision are implicated.” Id., at 437; see Shatzer, 559 U. S., at 108; Ma-thiason, supra, at 495. Confessions voluntarily made by prisoners in other situations should not be suppressed. “Voluntary confessions are not merely a proper element in law enforcement, they are an unmitigated good, essential to society’s compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law.” Shatzer, supra, at 108 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
B
The record in this case reveals that respondent was not taken into custody for purposes of Miranda. To be sure, respondent did not invite the interview or consent to it in advance, and he was not advised that he was free to decline to speak with the deputies. The following facts also lend some support to respondent’s argument that Miranda's custody requirement was met: The interview lasted for between five and seven hours in the evening and continued well past the hour when respondent generally went to bed; the deputies who questioned respondent were armed; and one of the deputies, according to respondent, “[u]sed a very sharp tone,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 76a, and, on one occasion, profanity, see id., at 77a.
These circumstances, however, were offset by others. Most important, respondent was told at the outset of the interrogation, and was reminded again thereafter, that he could leave and go back to his cell whenever he wanted. See id., at 89a-90a (“I was told I could get up and leave whenever I wanted”); id., at 70a-71a. Moreover, respondent was not physically restrained or threatened and was interviewed in a well-lit, average-sized conference room, where he was “not uncomfortable.” Id., at 90a; see id., at 71a, 88a-89a. He was offered food and water, and the door to the conference room was sometimes left open. See id., at 70a, 74a. “All of these objective facts are consistent with an interrogation environment in which a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interview and leave.” Yarborough, supra, at 664-665.
Because he was in prison, respondent was not free to leave the conference room by himself and to make his own way through the facility to his cell. Instead, he was escorted to the conference room and, when he ultimately decided to end the interview, he had to wait about 20 minutes for a corrections officer to arrive and escort him to his cell. But he would have been subject to this same restraint even if he had been taken to the conference room for some reason other than police questioning; under no circumstances could he have reasonably expected to be able to roam free. And while respondent testified that he “was told ... if I did not want to cooperate, I needed to go back to my cell,” these words did not coerce cooperation by threatening harsher conditions. App. to Pet. for Cert. 71a; see id., at 89a (“I was told, if I didn’t want to cooperate, I could leave”). Returning to his cell would merely have returned him to his usual environment. See Shatzer, supra, at 113 (“Interrogated suspects who have previously been convicted of crime live in prison. When they are released back into the general prison population, they return to their accustomed surroundings and daily routine — they regain the degree of control they had over their lives prior to the interrogation”).
Taking into account all of the circumstances of the questioning — including especially the undisputed fact that respondent was told that he was free to end the questioning and to return to his cell — we hold that respondent was not in custody within the meaning of Miranda.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Fields testified that he left his cell around 8 p.m. and that the interview began around 8:30 p.m. App. to Pet. for Cert. 77a. Both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Sixth Circuit stated that the interview began between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. See 617 F. 3d 813, 815 (2010); App. to Pet. for Cert. 54a.
The Court of Appeals stated that the interview lasted for approximately seven hours, see 617 F. 3d, at 815, a figure that appears to be based on the testimony of one of the interviewing deputies, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 123a. Fields put the number of hours between five and five and a half, saying the interview began around 8:30 p.m. and continued until 1:30 a.m. or 2 a.m. See id., at 77a. The Michigan Court of Appeals stated that the interview ended around midnight, which would put the length of the interview at between three and five hours.
Fields testified that his normal bedtime was 10:30 p.m. or 11 p.m. See id., at 78a.
Indeed, it is impossible to tell from either the opinion of this Court or that of the court below whether the prisoner’s interview was routine or whether there were special features that may have created an especially coercive atmosphere.
The state-court decision applied the traditional context-specific analysis to determine whether the circumstances of respondent’s interrogation gave rise to “the coercive pressure that Miranda was designed to guard against.” Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U. S. 98, 112 (2010). The court first observed: “That a defendant is in prison for an unrelated offense when being questioned does not, without more, mean that he was in custody for the purpose of determining whether Miranda warnings were required.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 56a (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added). In this case, the court noted, the “defendant was unquestionably in custody, but on a matter unrelated to the interrogation.” Ibid. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the state court thereby limited Miranda in a way rejected by Mathis v. United States, 391 U. S. 1 (1968), and “cur-tailfed] the warnings to be given persons under interrogation by officers based on the reason why the person is in custody.” Id., at 4-5. We think the better reading is that the state court merely meant to draw a distinction between incarceration and Miranda custody. This reading is supported by the state court’s subsequent consideration of whether the facts of the case were likely to create an atmosphere of coercion. App. to Pet. for Cert. 56a.
Respondent did not testify to the contrary. The following colloquy occurred at his Miranda hearing:
“Q. You’re not generally allowed to just roam around Lenawee County Jail on your own, are you?
“A. No, I never have.
“Q. So wouldn’t it make sense to you, since you had that experience, that in fact you would have been escorted just like you were escorted ... into this conference room?
“A. That makes common sense.
“Q. So when they said that you were free to leave and you get up — could get up and go and all you had to do was tell them you wanted to go, in your mind, did you understand that to mean that somebody would come get you and take you back to your cell?
“A. But that doesn’t give me freedom to just get up and walk away.
“Q. I understand it doesn’t—
“A., So, no.
“Q. The question is this, sir, not whether you had freedom to get up and walk away, but did you understand that what that meant was that a jailer would come get you and—
“A. No—
“Q. —take you back to your cell?
“A. I did not understand that.
“Q. You didn’t?
“A. No.
“Q. Why not? That’s how you got there.
“A. Because I did not know if a jailer would take me back or if one of those gentlemen would take me back.
“Q. But you understood that, if you asked, one of them or a jailer would take you back to your cell?
“A. I assumed that.
“Q. And you believed that to be true?
“A. I assumed that.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 91a-92a.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The main question in this case is whether California can enforce her minimum wholesale price regulations as respects milk sold to the United States at three military installations (Travis Air Force Base, Castle Air Force Base, and Oakland Army Terminal) located within California and used for strictly military consumption, for resale at federal commissaries and for consumption or resale at various military clubs and post exchanges. Milk used for the first two categories of use is paid for with appropriated funds, while that used in the clubs and exchanges is purchased with nonappropriated funds. Prior to January 1959, the milk supplies purchased with appropriated funds and used at those installations were obtained as a result of competitive bidding and on terms below the minimum prices prescribed by the Director of Agriculture of California. The Director advised distributors that the State’s minimum price regulations were applicable to sales at Travis. Subsequently bids for milk-supply contracts at Travis were in strict compliance with California’s regulations, the added cost to the Federal Government being about $15,000 a month. Later that year California instituted a civil action in the state courts against a cooperative that had supplied milk at Travis below the state minimum price, seeking civil penalties and an injunction. Thereafter the United States brought this suit in the District Court. The complaint alleged that state price regulation of milk sales at Travis, a federal enclave, was barred by the Constitution, since Travis is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It also alleged that such regulation was an unconstitutional burden on the United States in the exercise of its constitutional power to establish and maintain the Armed Forces and to acquire and manage a federal enclave. The complaint asked that a three-judge court be convened.
Meanwhile, the Director of Agriculture of California warned distributors that the California regulation would be enforced at Castle and at Oakland. Bids for milk thereafter received at Castle were all at or above the state minimum price; and accordingly they were rejected. A new invitation for bids was issued, and one of those received was below the state minimum. Thereupon California sued the successful bidder for an injunction; and later it sued other like bidders. A similar experience was had at Oakland; bids at or above the minimum were rejected, and a contract with a distributor for a prior period was extended for three months with an estimated saving to the United States of over $30,000. California again instituted suit to enjoin the supplier from selling at below established minimum wholesale prices. The United States amended its complaint to include its purchases at Castle. As respects Oakland the United States commenced a separate action by a complaint substantially identical with the other one; and they were later consolidated.
Appellants denied that these three installations were federal enclaves giving the United States exclusive jurisdiction and that there was any conflict between the state regulatory scheme and the federal procurement policy. Appellants also moved that the District Court stay these actions pending determination of state-law questions by the state courts in the pending actions.
The three-judge District Court refused to stay the proceedings and granted the motion of the United States for summary judgment. 190 F. Supp. 645.. We postponed a determination of jurisdiction to the merits. 368 U. S. 965.
Here, as in United States v. Georgia Public Service Comm’n, post, p. 285, decided this day, the suit was one “required” to be heard by a three-judge court within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1253 and therefore properly brought here by direct appeal. Apart from the question whether the three federal areas were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the issue as to whether or not the state regulatory scheme burdened the exercise by the United States of its constitutional powers to maintain the Armed Services and to regulate federal territory was a substantial federal question, as Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Comm’n, 318 U. S. 261, Public Utilities Comm’n of California v. United States, 355 U. S. 534, and United States v. Georgia Public Service Comm’n, supra, make clear. A three-judge court was therefore required even if other issues that might not pass muster on their own were also tendered. See 28 U. S. C. § 2281; Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc., v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73.
II.
The California Act authorizes the Director of Agriculture to prescribe minimum wholesale and retail prices “at which fluid milk or fluid cream shall be sold by distributors to retail stores, restaurants, confectioneries and other places for consumption on the premises.” The prohibitions run both against sales and against purchases; and both criminal and civil penalties are provided. The minimum wholesale prices, promulgated by the Director of Agriculture, have been enforced with respect to sales to the United States, as already noted.
In Public Utilities Comm’n of California v. United States, supra, we held that the federal procurement policy, which required competitive bidding as the general rule and negotiated purchase or contract as the exception, prevailed over California’s regulated rate system. That case, like United States v. Georgia Public Service Comm’n, supra, concerned transportation of commodities. But the federal policy at the times relevant here was the same for procurement of supplies and services. The statutes in effect at the time of the Public Utilities Comm’n of California case are still the basic provisions governing all procurement by the Armed Services out of appropriated funds. They require that contracts be placed by competitive bidding, the award to be granted “to the responsible bidder whose bid... will be the most advantageous to the United States, price and other factors considered.” There are statutory exceptions, the relevant ones being as follows:
“(a) Purchases of and contracts for property or services covered by this chapter shall be made by formal advertising in all cases in which the use of such method is feasible and practicable under the existing conditions and circumstances. If use of such method is not feasible and practicable, the head of an agency, subject to the requirements for determinations and findings in section 2310, may negotiate such a purchase or contract, if—
“(8) the purchase or contract is for property for authorized resale ;
“(9) the purchase or contract is for perishable or nonperishable subsistence supplies;
“(10) the purchase or contract is for property or services for which it is impracticable to obtain competition;
“(15) the purchase or contract is for property or services for which he determines that the bid prices received after formal advertising are unreasonable as to all or part of the requirements, or were not independently reached in open competition, and for which (A) he has notified each responsible bidder of intention to negotiate and given him reasonable opportunity to negotiate; (B) the negotiated price is lower than the lowest rejected bid of any responsible bidder, as determined by the head of the agency; and (C) the negotiated price is the lowest negotiated price offered by any responsible supplier.”
The Armed Services Procurement Regulation speaks in unambiguous terms of a policy “to use that method of procurement which will be most advantageous to the Government — price, quality, and other factors considered.” The Regulation states, “Such procurement shall be made on a competitive basis, whether by formal advertising or by negotiation, to the maximum practicable extent....” Whatever method is used — formal advertising or negotiation — “competitive proposals” must be “solicited from all such qualified sources of supplies or services as are deemed necessary by the contracting officer to assure such full and free competition as... to obtain for the Govérnment the most advantageous contract — • price, quality, and other factors considered.” If advertising for bids is used, the contract is to be awarded “to the lowest responsible bidder.” Moreover, even when advertising for bids is not used, competitive standards are not relaxed. The policy is “to procure supplies and services from responsible sources at fair and reasonable prices calculated to result in the lowest ultimate over-all cost to the Government.” “The fact that a procurement is to be negotiated does not relax the requirements for competition.” “Whenever supplies... are to be procured by negotiation, price quotations... shall be solicited from all such qualified sources of supplies or services as are deemed necessary... to assure full and free competition... to the end that the procurement will be made to the best advantage of the Government, price and other factors considered.” The Regulation then specifies 20 separate considerations for the selection of a supplier in case of a negotiated procurement. The first of these is a “comparison of prices quoted.”
We have said enough to show that the Regulation does more than authorize procurement officers to negotiate for lower rates. It directs that negotiations or, wherever possible, advertising for bids shall reflect active competition so that the United States may receive the most advantageous contract.
While the federal procurement policy demands competition, the California policy, as respects milk, effectively eliminates competition. The California policy defeats the command to federal officers to procure supplies at the lowest cost to the United States by having a state officer fix the price on the basis of factors not specified in the federal law. Moreover, when the supply contract is negotiated because “it is impracticable to obtain competition,” to use the statutory words, it is the state agency, not the federal procurement officer and the seller, that determines the price provisions of the contract, if state policy prevails. The collision between the federal policy of negotiated prices and the state policy of regulated prices is as clear and acute here as was the conflict between federal negotiated rates and state regulated rates in Public Utilities Comm’n of California v. United States, supra. In that case we said that the Regulation then existing, which was promulgated under the same Act here involved, “sanction[ed] the policy of negotiating rates for shipment of federal property and entrust [ed] the procurement officers with the discretion to determine when existing rates'will be accepted and when negotiation for lower rates will be undertaken.” 355 U. S., at 542-543.
Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control Comm’n, supra, is not opposed. As we noted in United States v. Georgia Public Service Comm’n, supra, Congress, after the Penn Dairies decision and before Public Utilities Comm’n of California v. United States, revised and restated the federal procurement policy. As stated in the House Report, “... the bill represents a comprehensive revision and restatement of the laws governing the procurement of supplies and services by the War and Navy Departments. It holds to the time-tested method of competitive bidding. At the same time it puts within the framework of one law almost a century’s accumulation of statutes and incorporates new safeguards designed to eliminate abuses, assures the Government of fair and reasonable prices for the supplies and services procured and affords an equal opportunity to all suppliers to compete for and share in the Government’s business.”
The Regulation controlling the Penn Dairies decision stated, as does the present Act, that supplies might be purchased on the open market where it is “impracticable to secure competition.” 318 U. S., at 277. But, unlike the present Regulation, the earlier one declared that such a situation arose “when the price is fixed by federal, state, municipal or other competent legal authority.” Ibid. The earlier Regulation further stated that federal procurement officers should not require suppliers to comply with state price-fixing laws before it was judicially determined whether the latter were applicable to government contracts (id., at 276), a provision which the Court said manifested a federal “hands off” policy-respecting minimum price laws of the States. Id,., at 278.
The present Regulation makes no such allowances, contains no such qualifications, and provides for no such exception. Its unqualified command is that purchases for the Armed Services be made on a competitive basis; and it has, of course, the force of law. Public Utilities Comm’n of California v. United States, supra, at 542-543. California’s price-fixing policy for milk is as opposed to this federal procurement policy as was California’s rate-making policy in Public Utilities Comm’n of California v. United States, supra.
Policy-wise, it might be better if state price-fixing systems were honored by federal procurement officials. It is urged that if that were done substandard producers of some suppliers would lose the advantage they may enjoy in competitive bidding. Congress could of course write that requirement into the law. Congress has written into the Act certain provisions of that character. It has required that contractors or manufacturers pay not less than the minimum wage as determined by the Secretary of Labor to be the prevailing wage; that building contractors pay such minimum wages to laborers and mechanics; and that no laborer or mechanic doing any work for contractors and subcontractors on government contracts shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours a day, unless one and a half times the basic rate is paid for overtime. The inclusion of these provisions, aimed as they are at substandard working conditions, shows that Congress has been alert to the problem. Their inclusion makes more eloquent the omission of any like requirement as respects prices or rates fixed by state law.
It is argued that the Act of September 10, 1962, 76 Stat. 528, changed the situation. California points to § 2306 (f), which requires contractors to submit cost or pricing data for any negotiated contract, but goes on to lift that requirement where “prices [are] set by law or regulation.” But this provision does not say, even equivocally, that federal procurement officers must abandon competitive bidding where prices are “set by law or regulation.” The Regulation makes competitive bidding the rule, as we have seen. Section 2306 (f) only provides for waiver of “cost or pricing data” under certain kinds of negotiated contracts if the prices of some commodities included in the contract have been “set by law or regulation.” That is to say, as, if, and when the procurement officer is authorized to accept prices “set by law or regulation,” he need not follow the requirements of § 2306 (f) concerning “cost or pricing data.”
California cites but builds no argument around § 2304 (g), also added in 1962. It is now suggested for the first time that § 2304 (g) requires federal procurement to follow state rate-fixing and state price-fixing. It provides in relevant part:
“In all negotiated procurements in excess of $2,500 in which rates or prices are not fixed by law or regulation and in which Jime of delivery will permit, proposals shall be solicited from the maximum number of qualified sources consistent with the nature and requirements of the supplies or services to be procured, and written or oral discussions shall be conducted with all responsible offerors who submit proposals within a competitive range, price, and other factors considered....”
Here again, the new statutory provision does not purport to say when rates or prices “fixed by law or regulation” govern federal procurement. At the time § 2304 (g) was added to the Act, the Regulation which we have discussed at length was in full force. That Regulation, unlike the one in Penn Dairies, eliminated the earlier provisions which had been construed to manifest a federal “hands off” policy respecting minimum price laws of the States. 318 U. S., at 278. The Regulation in force when this litigation started and in force when the 1962 Act was passed provides unequivocally for competitive bidding “to the maximum practicable extent,” as we have noted. That might well permit procurement officers under some circumstances to purchase at state-fixed prices. But competitive bidding is the rule, not the exception. There is not a word in the legislative history of the 1962 Act which indicates a congressional policy to uproot the Regulation or to change it. It was, indeed, repeatedly approved. See S. Rep. No. 1884, 87th Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1638, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., Parts I and II; Cong. Rec., June 7, 1962, p. 9231 et seg. Four years before the 1962 Act was passed California Comm’n had held that state regulations cannot preclude the Federal Government from negotiating lower rates. This result was not once questioned in the legislative history of the 1962 Act, even though the instant case was being litigated during this entire period. That Act only reflects an effort to provide collateral accommodations as, if, and when federal procurement follows state price-fixing. The mandate of 10 U. S. C. § 2305 (a) is still unequivocal; and the statutory exceptions to competitive bidding contained in § 2304 (a), discussed above, remain unchanged.
The 1962 Act fails to show a congressional purpose to abandon competitive bidding. On the contrary the purpose, as stated in S. Rep. No. 1884, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., was to increase the efficacy of the competitive bidding system then in force.
Not only was the existing Regulation cited repeatedly with approval, but the aim of the Act was described in unambiguous terms:
“In general, the objectives of the changes are—
“(1) To encourage more effort to accomplish procurements by formal advertising;
“(2) To require a clearer justification before certain authorities to negotiate contracts are used;
“(3) To obtain more competition in negotiated procurement;
“(4) To provide safeguards for the Government against inflated cost estimates in negotiated contracts.” Id., p. 1.
The House received an equally unambiguous explanation from the floor manager of the bill:
“[TJhis bill... has for its chief purpose, an increase in competitive purchasing.... [OJnly 13 percent of purchasing is now done by sealed competitive bidding. That is clearly not enough. Competition must be increased; competition must be had even in negotiated purchasing; and all negotiated purchasing must be further reduced.” Cong. Rec., June 7, 1962, p. 9234.
If there had been a desire to make federal procurement policy bow to state price-fixing in face of the contrary policy expressed in the Regulation, we can only believe that the objectives of the Act would have been differently stated. In sum, the references to rates or prices “fixed by law or regulation” are merely minor collateral accommodations to those situations where, within the limits of the Regulation and the 1962 Act, the federal procurement official decides that the practical way to obtain the supplies or services is by following the state price-fixing or rate-fixing system.
California, however, says that whatever may be the federal policy as to purchases of milk for mess-hall use, purchases of milk for resale at federal commissaries stand on a different footing. These commissaries are “arms of the Government deemed by it essential for the performance of governmental functions” and “partake of whatever immunities” the Armed Services “may have under the Constitution and federal statutes.” Cf. Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 316 U. S. 481, 485. Purchases for resale at these federal commissaries are made from appropriated funds; and the procurement officers act under the same Regulation when they purchase milk for the commissaries as they do when they purchase it for mess-hall use. California points out, however, that the federal statute provides that where commodities are purchased for resale, they may be procured by negotiation rather than by formal advertising — a provision we have quoted above and which was written into the law because purchases for commissaries “are generally not made by specifications but by brand names.” Milk, however, does not fit the category of commodities for which that exception was designed. Moreover, the statutory exception to formal advertising is merely permissive; the procurement officer “may” negotiate for articles to be resold but he is not required so to do. He is free to purchase by formal advertising from the responsible bidder whose bid “will be the most advantageous to the United States.” Whether he negotiates milk contracts or uses competitive bidding is made dependent by the federal statute on his informed discretion, not on state price-fixing policies. Moreover, as, if, and when he negotiates, the Regulation, as already-noted, requires price quotations “from all such qualified sources of supplies or services as are deemed necessary by the contracting officer to assure full and free competition... to the end that the procurement will be made to the best advantage of the Government, price and other factors considered.” And, to repeat, the procurement officer when he negotiates is controlled by 20 separate factors, one of which is “comparison of prices quoted,” and none of which relates in any manner whatsoever to the price-fixing policies of a State.
The fact that the cost of products sold at commissaries benefits commissary purchasers does not make the commissary any the less a federal agency. Cf. Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, supra. Congress authorizes the payment for commissary supplies from appropriated funds. The federal statutes dealing with procurement policies expressly make them applicable to all purchases “for which payment is to be made from appropriated funds.” Congress, to be sure, has provided that commissaries may not use any appropriated funds “unless the Secretary of Defense has certified that items normally procured from commissary stores are not otherwise available at a reasonable distance and a reasonable price in satisfactory quality and quantity to the military and civilian employees of the Department of Defense.” Here again, however, the question of what is a “reasonable price” is left to the discretion of a federal officer. Congress has not directed that commissaries be removed from the purview of federal procurement policies; nor has it adopted state price-fixing policies as federal policies when it comes to purchases for commissaries or otherwise.
III.
What we have said would dispose of the entire case but for the fact that some of the milk was purchased out of nonappropriated funds for use in military clubs and for resale at post exchanges. This brings us to the question whether Congress has power to exercise “exclusive legislation” over these enclaves within the meaning of Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, of the Constitution, which reads in relevant part: “The Congress shall have Power... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the District of Columbia and “to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
The power of Congress over federal enclaves that come within the scope of Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, is obviously the same as the power of Congress over the District of Columbia. The cases make clear that the grant of “exclusive” legislative power to Congress over enclaves that meet the requirements of Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, by its own weight, bars state regulation without specific congressional action. The question was squarely presented in Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture, 318 U. S. 285, which involved, as does the present litigation, California’s Act and an attempt to fix the prices at which milk could be sold at Moffett Field. We held that “sales consummated within the enclave cannot be regulated” by California because of the constitutional grant of “exclusive legislation” respecting lands purchased by the United States with the consent of the State {id., at 294), even though there was no conflicting federal Regulation.
Thus the first question here is whether the three enclaves in question were “purchased by the Consent of the Legislature” of California within the meaning of Art. I, § 8, cl. 17.
The power of the Federal Government to acquire land within a State by purchase or by condemnation without the consent of the State is well established. Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367, 371. But without the State’s “consent” the United States does not obtain the benefits of Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, its possession being simply that of an ordinary proprietor. James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 141-142. In that event, however, it was held in Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 541, 542, that a State could complete the “exclusive” jurisdiction of the Federal Government over such an enclave by “a cession of legislative authority and political jurisdiction.”
Thus if the United States acquires with the “consent” of the state legislature land within the borders of that State by purchase or condemnation for any of the purposes mentioned in Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, or if the land is acquired without such consent and later the State gives its “consent,” the jurisdiction of the Federal Government becomes “exclusive.” Since 1940 Congress has required the United. States to assent to the transfer of jurisdiction over the property, however it may be acquired. In either event — whether the land is acquired by purchase or condemnation on the one hand or by cession on the other — a State may condition its “consent” upon its retention of jurisdiction over the lands consistent with the federal use. James v. Dravo Contracting Co., supra, 146-149. Moreover, as stated in Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U. S. 94, 99-100:
“The Constitution does not command that every vestige of the laws of the former sovereignty must vanish. On the contrary its language has long been interpreted so as to permit the continuance until abrogated of those rules existing at the time of the surrender of sovereignty which govern the rights of the occupants of the territory transferred. This assures that no area however small will be left without a developed legal system for private rights.”
California has had several statutory provisions relevant to our problem under Art. I, § 8, cl. 17. One pertained to acquisition of land by the United States through “purchase or condemnation.” Another concerned land “ceded or granted” by California to the United States.
Those provisions were codified in 1943, acquisitions by “purchase or condemnation” appearing in one section and acquisitions by cession in another. Another section of the codification, after stating that California “cedes” to the United States “exclusive jurisdiction” over all lands “held, occupied, or reserved” by the United States “for military purposes or defense,” provides that a description of the land by metes and bounds and a map or plat of the land “shall first be filed in the proper office of record in the county in which the lands are situated.”
Most of the transactions creating these three federal enclaves took place between 1942 and 1944, some in 1946 and some even later.
Whether the United States has acquired exclusive jurisdiction over a federal enclave is a federal question. As stated in Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U. S. 186, 197:
“The question of exclusive territorial jurisdiction is distinct. That question assumes the absence of any interference with the exercise of the functions of the Federal Government and is whether the United States has acquired exclusive legislative authority so as to debar the State from exercising any legislative authority, including its taxing and police power, in relation to the property and activities of individuals and corporations within the territory. The acquisition of title by the United States is not sufficient to effect that exclusion. It must appear that the State, by consent or cession, has transferred to the United States that residuum of jurisdiction which otherwise it would be free to exercise.... In this instance, the Supreme Court of Washington has held that the State has not yielded exclusive legislative authority to the Federal Government.... That question, however, involving the extent of the jurisdiction of the United States, is necessarily a federal question.”
As already noted, a California statute “cedes to the United States exclusive jurisdiction” over described lands provided a description of the metes and bounds and a map of the land first be filed. California earnestly argues that “cedes” in that context includes “purchases” and “acquisitions by condemnation.” But the California statutes have consistently drawn the line between acquisitions by cession on the one hand and all other acquisitions on the other. That is the gist of a recent opinion of the Attorney General of California, in which he treats an acquisition by cession as an alternative to acquisition in other ways and rules that when the acquisition is by means other than cession no map of the land need first be filed. That seems to us to be the fair meaning of the statutory provisions.
The conditions expressed in the California Acts, by which California consented to “the purchase or condemnation” of land by the United States for the prescribed purposes, do not undertake to make applicable to the federal enclaves all future laws of California. Since a State may not legislate with respect to a federal enclave unless it reserved the right to do so when it gave its consent to the purchase by the United States, only state law existing at the time of the acquisition remains enforceable, not subsequent laws. See Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, supra; Arlington Hotel v. Fant, 278 U. S. 439. If the price-control laws California is now seeking to apply to sales on federal enclaves were not in effect when the United States acquired these lands, the case is on all fours with Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture, supra. There the Court held that the California statutes under which some of the present acquisitions were made granted the United States exclusive jurisdiction over the tracts in question in spite of the express conditions therein contained (id., at 293) and that this price-control law was not enforceable on a federal enclave in California because it was adopted “long after the transfer of sovereignty.” 318 U. S., at 294. The United States seeks shelter under that rule, saying California is trying to enforce its current regulatory scheme, not the price regulations in effect when the purchases were made. Yet if there were price control of milk at the time of the acquisition and the same basic scheme has been in effect since that time, we fail to see why the current one, albeit in the form of different regulations, would not reach those purchases and sales of milk on the federal enclave made from nonappropriated funds. Congress could provide otherwise and has done so as respects purchases and sales of milk from appropriated funds. But since there is no conflicting federal policy concerning purchases and sales from nonappropriated funds, we conclude that the current price controls over milk are applicable to these sales, provided the basic state law authorizing such control has been in effect since the times of these various acquisitions. A remand will be necessary to resolve that question, as the present record does not show the precise evolution of the present regulatory scheme.
There also remains another uncertainty concerning the purchases and sales of milk out of nonappropriated funds. There is a dispute over where some of these sales are made. Each of the three enclaves has numerous units acquired at various times, some of which may be subject to “exclusive” federal jurisdiction and some of which may not be. California earnestly claims that some sales out of nonappropriated funds were made on units of land over which the United States does not have “exclusive” jurisdiction. She makes the claim as respects some milk used at Travis, some at Castle, and some at Oakland.
We do not resolve the question but vacate the judgment of the District Court insofar as it relates to purchases and sales of milk made from nonappropriated funds and remand the case to the District Court to determine whether at the respective times when the various tracts in question were acquired California’s basic price-control law as respects milk was in effect. If so, judgment on this class of purchases and sales should be for appellants. If not, then the District Court must make particularized findings as to where the purchases and sales of milk from nonappropriated funds are made and whether or not those tracts are areas over which the United States has “exclusive” jurisdiction within the meaning of Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution.
Moreover, the decree must be modified to reflect the change in federal procurement policy as respects producers, already noted.
Accordingly the judgment is affirmed in part and in part vacated and remanded.
It is so ordered.
The United States has abandoned a further claim that California cannot constitutionally enforce her price regulations against producers with respect to milk sold to distributors for processing and ultimately resold to the United States. The abandonment of this claim is not a confession of error but only a decision not to assert immunity from that price control as a matter of procurement policy.
It appears that while California has authorized her Director of Agriculture to establish minimum wholesale prices for both “fluid milk” and “fluid cream,” and that while the Director has done so for a marketing area encompassing another base, all of the minimum wholesale price regulations appearing in the record pertain only to “fluid milk.”
In view of these facts, the case now involves only California’s power to enforce her minimum wholesale prices for “fluid milk” with respect to sales to the United States at the three bases involved.
Article I, § 8, el. 17, of the Constitution gives Congress power “To exercise exclusive Legislation... over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Calif. Agr. Code, § 4350.
Md., §4352.
Id., § 4361.
Id., §4410.
10 U. S. C. §2305 (c). This statute is a recodifieation without substantial change of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947. See S. Rep. No. 2484, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. 19, 20-21.
Id., §2304 (a) (8) (9) (10) (15).
Armed Services Procurement Regulation (revised to April 20, 1959), ¶1-301.
Ibid.
Id., ¶ 1-302.2.
Id., ¶ 1-301.
Id., ¶3-801.1.
Id., ¶3-101 (a) (Army Procurement Procedure).
Id., ¶ 3-101.
Ibid.
Ibid.
10 U. S. C. §2304 (a) (10).
H. R. Rep. No. 109, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 6.
Section 2304 (f), which incorporates the Walsh-Healey Act (41 U. S. C. §§35-45), the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U. S. C. §276a), and the Eight Hour Law (40 U. S. C. §§ 324, 325a).
The ill which § 2304 (g) was designed to cure was a service-employed negotiating process which did not always produce low enough prices. Informal quotations, usually accompanied by a breakdown of cost elements, were first secured from as many sources as practicable. Separate negotiations with only a few low bidders were then undertaken in order to reduce the price by eliminating unnecessary or unjustified charges. Congress and the Comptroller General condemned this kind of “negotiation” because:
“It is our opinion that the authority to negotiate does not, of itself, warrant the curtailment of competition. Yet this may be the result where several proposals are received and the contracting officer decides to negotiate with only one offeror or to award a contract without discussion with any offeror.... We believe that... negotiations [should be conducted] with all responsible offerors who submit proposals within a competitive range, price and other factors considered.” H. R. Rep. No. 1959, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 17. See also S. Rep. No. 1900, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 27; S. Rep. No. 1884, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 8-9, 21-22; H. R. Rep. No. 1638, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 4-5.
The exact meaning of the “rates or prices... fixed by law or regulation” exception to this “discussion” requirement is not too clear. The one short reference to § 2304 (g) in the congressional debates implies that a procurement officer could accept any price set “by law or regulation” without attempting to get a better price from
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, alleging that he was unconstitutionally denied the assistance of counsel when he entered a plea of guilty in that court to a charge of burglary. The trial court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and filed no opinion. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. 177 Neb. 404, 129 N. W. 2d 107. The Supreme Court’s opinion recognized that petitioner’s allegations, if true, would establish a violation of the Federal Constitution. 177 Neb., at 410,129 N. W. 2d, at 111. The Supreme Court held, however, that, in Nebraska, “Habeas corpus is not available to discharge a prisoner from a sentence of penal servitude if the court imposing it had jurisdiction of the offense and of the person charged with the crime, and the sentence was within the power of the court.” 177 Neb., at 412, 129 N. W. 2d, at 112. We granted certiorari, 379 U. S. 958, to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the States afford state prisoners some adequate corrective process for the hearing and determination of claims of violation of federal constitutional guarantees.
After certiorari was granted, the Nebraska Legislature enacted a statute providing a postconviction procedure. Neb. Leg. Bill 836, Seventy-fifth Session, effective April 12, 1965. On its face, the statute provides for a hearing of petitions such as this one, alleging denial of federal constitutional rights. Therefore, the judgment is vacated and the cause remanded to the Nebraska Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of the supervening statute.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is a federal crime under 18 U. S. C. §844(i) (1994 ed., Supp. IV) to damage or destroy, “by means of fire or an explosive, any .. . property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” This case presents the question whether arson of an owner-occupied private residence falls within §844(i)’s compass. Construing the statute’s text, we hold that an owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property “used in” commerce or commerce-affecting activity; arson of such a dwelling, therefore, is not subject to federal prosecution under §844(i). Our construction of § 844(i) is reinforced by the Court’s opinion in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and the interpretive rule that constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided where possible, see Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988).
I
On February 23, 1998, petitioner Dewey Jones tossed a Molotov cocktail through a window into a home in Fort Wayne, Indiana, owned and occupied by his cousin. No one was injured in the ensuing fire, but the blaze severely damaged the home. A federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging Jones with arson, 18 U. S. C. §844(i) (1994 ed., Supp. IV); using a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence (the arson), 18 U. S. C. § 924(c); and making an illegal destructive device, 26 U. S. C. § 5861(f). Jones was tried under that indictment in the Northern District of Indiana and convicted by a jury on all three counts. The District Court sentenced him, pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, to a total prison term of 35 years, to be followed by five years of supervised release. The court also ordered Jones to pay $77,396.87 to the insurer of the damaged home as restitution for its loss. Jones appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 178 F. 3d 479 (1999).
Jones unsuccessfully urged, both before the District Court and on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, that § 844(i), when applied to the arson of a private residence, exceeds the authority vested in Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Courts of Appeals have divided both on the question whether § 844(i) applies to buildings not used for commercial purposes, and on the constitutionality of such an application. We granted certiorari, 528 U. S. 1002 (1999), and framed as the question presented:
“Whether, in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and the interpretive rule that constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided, see Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988), 18 U. S. C. § 844(i) applies to the arson of a private residence; and if so, whether its application to the private residence in the present case is constitutional.”
Satisfied that § 844(i) does not reach an owner-occupied residence that is not used for any commercial purpose, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment.
II
Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. §844(i) as part of Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-452, § 1102, 84 Stat. 952, “because of the need ‘to curb the use, transportation, and possession of explosives.’” Russell v. United States, 471 U. S. 858, 860, n. 5 (1985) (citation omitted). The word “fire,” which did not appear in §844(i) as originally composed, was introduced by statutory amendment in 1982. As now worded, §844(i) (1994 ed., Supp. IV) reads in relevant part:
“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 less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both ...
We previously construed §844(i) in Russell v. United States, 471 U. S. 858 (1985), and there held that § 844(i) applies to a building “used as rental property,” ibid. The petitioner-defendant in Russell had unsuccessfully attempted to set fire to a two-unit apartment building he owned. He earned rental income from the property and “treated it as business property for tax purposes.” Id., at 859. Our decision stated as the dispositive fact: “Petitioner was renting his apartment building to tenants at the time he attempted to destroy it by fire.” Id., at 862. It followed from that fact, the Russell opinion concluded, that “[t]he property was . . . being used in an activity affecting commerce within the meaning of §844(i).” Ibid.
We now confront a question that was not before the Court in Russell: Does §844(i) cover property occupied and used by its owner not for any commercial venture, but as a private residence. Is such a dwelling place, in the words of § 844(i), “used in ... any activity affecting ... commerce”?
In support of its argument that §844(i) reaches the arson of an owner-occupied private residence, the Government relies principally on the breadth of the statutory term “affecting . . . commerce,” see Brief for United States 10, 16-17, words that, when unqualified, signal Congress’ intent to invoke its full authority under the Commerce Clause. But §844(i) contains the qualifying words “used in” a commerce-affecting activity. The key word is “used.” “Congress did not define the crime described in §844(i) as the explosion of a building whose damage or destruction might affect interstate commerce . . . .” United States v. Mennuti, 639 F. 2d 107, 110 (CA2 1981) (Friendly, J.). Congress “require[d] that the damaged or destroyed property must itself have been used in commerce or in an activity affecting commerce.” Ibid. The proper inquiry, we agree, “is into the function of the building itself, and then a determination of whether that function affects interstate commerce.” United States v. Ryan, 9 F. 3d 660, 675 (CA8 1993) (Arnold, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The Government urges that the Fort Wayne, Indiana, residence into which Jones tossed a Molotov cocktail was constantly “used” in at least three “activities] affecting commerce.” First, the homeowner “used” the dwelling as collateral to obtain and secure a mortgage from an Oklahoma lender; the lender, in turn, “used” the property as security for the home loan. Second, the homeowner “used” the residence to obtain a casualty insurance policy from a Wisconsin insurer. That policy, the Government points out, safeguarded the interests of the homeowner and the mortgagee. Third, the homeowner “used” the dwelling to receive natural gas from sources outside Indiana. See Brief for United States 19-23.
The Government correctly observes that § 844(i) excludes no particular type of building (it covers “any building”); the provision does, however, require that the building be “used” in an activity affecting commerce. That qualification is most sensibly read to mean active employment for commercial purposes, and not merely a passive, passing, or past connection to commerce. Although “variously defined,” the word “use,” in legislation as in conversation, ordinarily signifies “active employment.” Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137, 143, 145 (1995); see also Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U. S. 179, 187 (1995) (“When terms used in a statute are undefined, we give them their ordinary meaning.”).
It surely is not the common perception that a private, owner-occupied residence is “used” in the “activity” of receiving natural gas, a mortgage, or an insurance policy. Cf. Bailey, 516 U. S., at 145 (interpreting the word “use,” as it appears in 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1), to mean active employment of a firearm and rejecting the Government’s argument that a gun is “Used” whenever its presence “proteet[s] drugs” or “embolden[s]” a drug dealer). The Government does not allege that the Indiana residence involved in this case served as a home office or the locus of any commercial undertaking. The home’s only “active employment,” so far as the record reveals, was for the everyday living of Jones’s cousin and his family.
Our decision in Russell does not warrant a less “use”-centered reading of §844(i). In that case, which involved the arson of property rented out by its owner, see supra, at 853, the Court referred to the recognized distinction between legislation limited to activities “in commerce” and legislation invoking Congress’ full power over activity substantially “affecting . . . commerce.” 471 U. S., at 859-860, and n. 4. The Russell opinion went on to observe, however, that “[b]y its terms,” § 844(i) applies only to “property that is ‘used’ in an ‘activity’ that affects commerce.” Id., at 862. “The rental of real estate,” the Court then stated, “is unquestionably such an activity.” Ibid. Here, as earlier emphasized, the owner used the property as his home, the center of his family life. He did not use the residence in any trade or business.
Were we to adopt the Government’s expansive interpretation of § 844(i), hardly a building in the land would fall outside the federal statute’s domain. Practically every building in our cities, towns, and rural areas is constructed with supplies that have moved in interstate commerce, served by utilities that have an interstate connection, financed or insured by enterprises that do business across state lines, or bears some other trace of interstate commerce. See, e. g., FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S. 742, 757 (1982) (observing that electric energy is consumed “in virtually every home” and that “[n]o State relies solely on its own resources” to meet its inhabitants’ demand for the product). If such connections sufficed to trigger §844(i), the statute’s limiting language, “used in” any commerce-affecting activity, would have no office. See United States v. Monholland, 607 F. 2d 1311, 1316 (CA10 1979) (finding in §844(i) no indication that Congress intended to include “everybody and everything”). “Judges should hesitate ... to treat statutory terms in any setting [as surplusage], and resistance should be heightened when the words describe an element of a criminal offense.” Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135, 140-141 (1994); accord, Bailey, 516 U. S., at 145.
III
Our reading of § 844(i) is in harmony with the guiding principle that “where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter.” United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 408 (1909), quoted in Jones v. United States, 526 U. S. 227, 239 (1999); see also DeBartolo, 485 U. S., at 575; Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 348 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). In Lopez, this Court invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act, former 18 U. S. C. § 922(q) (1988 ed., Supp. V), which made it a federal crime to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The defendant in that case, a 12th-grade student, had been convicted for knowingly possessing a concealed handgun and bullets at his San Antonio, Texas, high school, in violation of the federal Act. Holding that the Act exceeded Congress’ power to regulate commerce, the Court stressed that the area was one of traditional state concern, see 514 U. S., at 561, n. 3, 567; id., at 577 (Kennedy, J., concurring), and that the legislation aimed at activity in which “neither the actors nor their conduct has a commercial character,” id., at 580 (Kennedy, J., concurring); id., at 560-562 (opinion of the Court).
Given the concerns brought to the fore in Lopez, it is appropriate to avoid the constitutional question that would arise were we to read §844(i) to render the “traditionally local criminal conduct” in which petitioner Jones engaged “a matter for federal enforcement.” United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 350 (1971). Our comprehension of § 844(i) is additionally reinforced by other interpretive guides. We have instructed that “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity,” Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808, 812 (1971), and that “when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite,” United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 344 U. S. 218, 221-222 (1952). We have cautioned, as well, that “unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance” in the prosecution of crimes. Bass, 404 U. S., at 349. To read §844(i) as encompassing the arson of an owner-occupied private home would effect such a change, for arson is a paradigmatic common-law state crime. See generally Poulos, The Metamorphosis of the Law of Arson, 51 Mo. L. Rev. 295 (1986).
>
We conclude that § 844(i) is not soundly read to make virtually every arson in the country a federal offense. We hold that the provision covers only property currently used in commerce or in an activity affecting commerce. The home owned and occupied by petitioner Jones’s cousin was not so used — it was a dwelling place used for everyday family living. As we read §844(i), Congress left cases of this genre to the law enforcement authorities of the States.
Our holding that §844(i) does not cover the arson of an owner-occupied dwelling means that Jones’s §844(i) conviction must be vacated. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The question on which we granted review refers solely to Jones’s §844(i) conviction. See infra, at 852. We therefore do not address his § 924(c) and § 5861(f) convictions.
Compare United States v. Gaydos, 108 F. 3d 505 (CA3 1997) (vacant, uninhabitable house formerly rented not covered by statute), United States v. Denalli, 73 F. 3d 328 (CA11) (owner-occupied residence not covered), modified on other grounds, 90 F. 3d 444 (1996) (per curiam), United States v. Mennuti, 639 F. 2d 107 (CA2 1981) (same), with United States v. Ryan, 41 F. 3d 361 (CA8 1994) (en banc) (vacant former commercial property covered), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1082 (1995), United States v. Ramey, 24 F. 3d 602 (CA4 1994) (owner-occupied residence covered), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1103 (1995), and United States v. Stillwell, 900 F. 2d 1104 (CA7) (same), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 838 (1990).
Compare United States v. Pappadopoulos, 64 F. 3d 522 (CA9 1995) (application to owner-occupied residence unconstitutional), with 178 F. 3d 479 (CA7 1999) (decision below), and Ramey, 24 F. 3d, at 602 (application constitutional).
See Pub. L. 97-298, §2(c), 96 Stat. 1319 (amending §844(i) to insert the words “fire or” before the words “an explosive”). The House Report accompanying the 1982 legislation explained that the original measure, which was confined to damage caused by “an explosive,” had resulted in problems of practical application. H.' R. Rep. No. 678, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1982). In particular, the Report noted a Circuit conflict on the question whether the measure covered use of gasoline or other flammable liquids to ignite a fire. Id., at 2, and nn. 5-6.
We noted in Russell that the original version of the bill that became § 844(i) applied to destruction, by means of explosives, of property used “ ‘for business purposes.’ ” 471 U. S., at 860, n. 5. After some House members indicated that they thought the provision should apply to the bombings of schools, police stations, and places of worship, the words “for business purposes” were omitted. Id., at 860-861. The House Report accompanying the final bill, we farther noted in Russell, described §844(i) as “‘a very broad provision covering substantially all business property.’” Id., at 861, and n. 8 (citing H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, pp. 69-70 (1970)).
The defendants in Mennuti destroyed two buildings. One was the residence of the owner and her family, the other was a rental property. See 639 F. 2d, at 108-109, n. 1. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the entire indictment. Our decision in Russell v. United States, 471 U. S. 858 (1985), supersedes Mennuti with respect to the building held for rental. Regarding the family residence, we find Mennuti's reasoning persuasive.
In Ryan, Chief Judge Arnold dissented from a panel decision holding that the arson of a permanently closed fitness center fell within § 844(i)’s prohibition. The panel majority considered adequate either of two interstate commerce connections: the building was owned and leased by out-of-state parties, and received natural gas from across state borders. The panel added, however, that it would not extend the decision “to property which is purely private in nature, such as a privately owned home, used solely for residential purposes.” 9 F. 3d, at 666-667. Sitting en banc, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the panel’s judgment. See United States v. Ryan, 41 F. 3d 361 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1082 (1995).
Notably, the Court in Russell did not rest its holding on the expansive interpretation advanced by the Government both in Russell and in this case. Compare Brief for United States in Russell v. United, States, O. T. 1984, No. 435, p. 15 (“Petitioner used his building on South Union Street in an activity affecting interstate commerce by heating it with gas that moved interstate.”), with Russell, 471 U. S., at 862 (focusing instead on fact that “[t]he rental of real estate is unquestionably ... an activity” affecting commerce).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The “open fields” doctrine, first enunciated by this Court in Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57 (1924), permits police officers to enter and search a field without a warrant. We granted certiorari in these cases to clarify confusion that has arisen as to the continued vitality of the doctrine.
I
No. 82-15.Acting on reports that marihuana was being raised on the farm of petitioner Oliver, two narcotics agents of the Kentucky State Police went to the farm to investigate. Arriving at the farm, they drove past petitioner's house to a locked gate with a “No Trespassing” sign. A footpath led around one side of the gate. The agents walked around the gate and along the road for several hundred yards, passing a bam and a parked camper. At that point, someone standing in front of the camper shouted: “No hunting is allowed, come back up here.” The officers shouted back that they were Kentucky State Police officers, but found no one when they returned to the camper. The officers resumed their investigation of the farm and found a field of marihuana over a mile from petitioner’s home.
Petitioner was arrested and indicted for “manufacturing]” a “controlled substance.” 21 U. S. C. § 841(a)(1). After a pretrial hearing, the District Court suppressed evidence of the discovery of the marihuana field. Applying Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967), the court found that petitioner had a reasonable expectation that the field would remain private because petitioner “had done all that could be expected of him to assert his privacy in the area of farm that was searched.” He had posted “No Trespassing” signs at regular intervals and had locked the gate at the entrance to the center of the farm. App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 82-15, pp. 23-24. Further, the court noted that the field itself is highly secluded: it is bounded on all sides by woods, fences, and embankments and cannot be seen from any point of public access. The court concluded that this was not an “open” field that invited casual intrusion.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the District Court. 686 F. 2d 356 (1982). The court concluded that Katz, upon which the District Court relied, had not impaired the vitality of the open fields doctrine of Hester. Rather, the open fields doctrine was entirely compatible with Katz’ emphasis on privacy. The court reasoned that the “human relations that create the need for privacy do not ordinarily take place” in open fields, and that the property owner’s common-law right to exclude trespassers is insufficiently linked to privacy to warrant the Fourth Amendment’s protection. 686 F. 2d, at 360. We granted certiorari. 459 U. S. 1168 (1983).
No. 82-1273. After receiving an anonymous tip that marihuana was being grown in the woods behind respondent Thornton’s residence, two police officers entered the woods by a path between this residence and a neighboring house. They followed a footpath through the woods until they reached two marihuana patches fenced with chicken wire. Later, the officers determined that the patches were on the property of respondent, obtained a warrant to search the property, and seized the marihuana. On the basis of this evidence, respondent was arrested and indicted.
The trial court granted respondent’s motion to suppress the fruits of the second search. The warrant for this search was premised on information that the police had obtained during their previous warrantless search, that the court found to be unreasonable. “No Trespassing” signs and the secluded location of the marihuana patches evinced a reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, the court held, the open fields doctrine did not apply.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. 453 A. 2d 489 (1982). It agreed with the trial court that the correct question was whether the search “is a violation of privacy on which the individual justifiably relied,” id., at 493, and that the search violated respondent’s privacy. The court also agreed that the open fields doctrine did not justify the search. That doctrine applies, according to the court, only when officers are lawfully present on property and observe “open and patent” activity. Id., at 495. In this case, the officers had trespassed upon defendant’s property, and the respondent had made every effort to conceal his activity. We granted certiorari. 460 U. S. 1068 (1983).
h — I
The rule announced in Hester v. United States was founded upon the explicit language of the Fourth Amendment. That Amendment indicates with some precision the places and things encompassed by its protections. As Justice Holmes explained for the Court in his characteristically laconic style: “[T]he special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields. The distinction between the latter and the house is as old as the common law.” Hester v. United States, 265 U. S., at 59.
Nor are the open fields “effects” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In this respect, it is suggestive that James Madison’s proposed draft of what became the Fourth Amendment preserves “[t]he rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures . . . .” See N. Lasson, The History and Development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 100, n. 77 (1937). Although Congress’ revisions of Madison’s proposal broadened the scope of the Amendment in some respects, id., at 100-103, the term “effects” is less inclusive than “property” and cannot be said to encompass open fields. We conclude, as did the Court in deciding Hester v. United States, that the government’s intrusion upon the open fields is not one of those “unreasonable searches” proscribed by the text of the Fourth Amendment.
hH HH
This interpretation of the Fourth Amendment’s language is consistent with the understanding of the right to privacy expressed in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Since Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), the touchstone of Amendment analysis has been the question whether a person has a “constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.” Id., at 360 (Harlan, J., concurring). The Amendment does not protect the merely subjective expectation of privacy, but only those “expectation[s] that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” Id., at 361. See also Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 740-741 (1979).
A
No single factor determines whether an individual legitimately may claim under the Fourth Amendment that a place should be free of government intrusion not authorized by warrant. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 152-153 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring). In assessing the degree to which a search infringes upon individual privacy, the Court has given weight to such factors as the intention of the Framers of the Fourth Amendment, e. g., United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 7-8 (1977), the uses to which the individual has put a location, e. g., Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 265 (1960), and our societal understanding that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion, e. g., Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573 (1980). These factors are equally relevant to determining whether the government’s intrusion upon open fields without a warrant or probable cause violates reasonable expectations of privacy and is therefore a search proscribed by the Amendment.
In this light, the rule of Hester v. United States, supra, that we reaffirm today, may be understood as providing that an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home. See also Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. Western Alfalfa Corp., 416 U. S. 861, 865 (1974). This rule is true to the conception of the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment. The Amendment reflects the recognition of the Framers that certain enclaves should be free from arbitrary government interference. For example, the Court since the enactment of the Fourth Amendment has stressed “the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic.” Payton v. New York, supra, at 601. See also Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511 (1961); United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297, 313 (1972).
In contrast, open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields. Moreover, as a practical matter these lands usually are accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home, an office, or commercial structure would not be. It is not generally true that fences or “No Trespassing” signs effectively bar the public from viewing open fields in rural areas. And both petitioner Oliver and respondent Thornton concede that the public and police lawfully may survey lands from the air. For these reasons, the asserted expectation of privacy in open fields is not an expectation that “society recognizes as reasonable.”
The historical underpinnings of the open fields doctrine also demonstrate that the doctrine is consistent with respect for “reasonable expectations of privacy. ” As Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, observed in Hester, 265 U. S., at 59, the common law distinguished “open fields” from the “curti-lage,” the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home. See 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *225. The distinction implies that only the curtilage, not the neighboring open fields, warrants the Fourth Amendment protections that attach to the home. At common law, the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the “sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life,” Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630 (1886), and therefore has been considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Thus, courts have extended Fourth Amendment protection to the curtilage; and they have defined the curtilage, as did the common law, by reference to the factors that determine whether an individual reasonably may expect that an area immediately adjacent to the home will remain private. See, e. g., United States v. Van Dyke, 643 F. 2d 992, 993-994 (CA4 1981); United States v. Williams, 581 F. 2d 451, 453 (CA5 1978); Care v. United States, 231 F. 2d 22, 25 (CA10), cert. denied, 351 U. S. 932 (1956). Conversely, the common law implies, as we reaffirm today, that no expectation of privacy legitimately attaches to open fields.
We conclude, from the text of the Fourth Amendment and from the historical and contemporary understanding of its purposes, that an individual has no legitimate expectation that open fields will remain free from warrantless intrusion by government officers.
B
Petitioner Oliver and respondent Thornton contend, to the contrary, that the circumstances of a search sometimes may indicate that reasonable expectations of privacy were violated; and that courts therefore should analyze these circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The language of the Fourth Amendment itself answers their contention.
Nor would a case-by-case approach provide a workable accommodation between the needs of law enforcement and the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. Under this approach, police officers would have to guess before every search whether landowners had erected fences sufficiently high, posted a sufficient number of warning signs, or located contraband in an area sufficiently secluded to establish a right of privacy. The lawfulness of a search would turn on “ ‘[a] highly sophisticated set of rules, qualified by all sorts of ifs, ands, and buts and requiring the drawing of subtle nuances and hairline distinctions . . . New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 458 (1981) (quoting LaFave, “Case-By-Case Adjudication” versus “Standardized Procedures”: The Robinson Dilemma, 1974 S. Ct. Rev. 127, 142). This Court repeatedly has acknowledged the difficulties created for courts, police, and citizens by an ad hoc, case-by-case definition of Fourth Amendment standards to be applied in differing factual circumstances. See Belton, supra, at 458-460; Robbins v. California, 453 U. S. 420, 430 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring in judgment); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 213-214 (1979); United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 235 (1973). The ad hoc approach not only makes it difficult for the policeman to discern the scope of his authority, Belton, supra, at 460; it also creates a danger that constitutional rights will be arbitrarily and inequitably enforced. Cf. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 572-573 (1974).
IV
In any event, while the factors that petitioner Oliver and respondent Thornton urge the courts to consider may be relevant to Fourth Amendment analysis in some contexts, these factors cannot be decisive on the question whether the search of an open field is subject to the Amendment. Initially, we reject the suggestion that steps taken to protect privacy establish that expectations of privacy in an open field are legitimate. It is true, of course, that petitioner Oliver and respondent Thornton, in order to conceal their criminal activities, planted the marihuana upon secluded land and erected fences and “No Trespassing” signs around the property. And it may be that because of such precautions, few members of the public stumbled upon the marihuana crops seized by the police. Neither of these suppositions demonstrates, however, that the expectation of privacy was legitimate in the sense required by the Fourth Amendment. The test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly “private” activity. Rather, the correct inquiry is whether the government’s intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment. As we have explained, we find no basis for concluding that a police inspection of open fields accomplishes such an infringement.
Nor is the government’s intrusion upon an open field a “search” in the constitutional sense because that intrusion is a trespass at common law. The existence of a property right is but one element in determining whether expectations of privacy are legitimate. “ ‘The premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited.’” Katz, 389 U. S., at 353 (quoting Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 304 (1967)). “[E]ven a property interest in premises may not be sufficient to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to particular items located on the premises or activity conducted thereon.” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S., at 144, n. 12.
The common law may guide consideration of what areas are protected by the Fourth Amendment by defining areas whose invasion by others is wrongful. Id., at 153 (Powell, J., concurring). The law of trespass, however, forbids intrusions upon land that the Fourth Amendment would not proscribe. For trespass law extends to instances where the exercise of the right to exclude vindicates no legitimate privacy interest. Thus, in the case of open fields, the general rights of property protected by the common law of trespass have little or no relevance to the applicability of the Fourth Amendment.
V
We conclude that the open fields doctrine, as enunciated in Hester, is consistent with the plain language of the Fourth Amendment and its historical purposes. Moreover, Justice Holmes’ interpretation of the Amendment in Hester accords with the “reasonable expectation of privacy” analysis developed in subsequent decisions of this Court. We therefore affirm Oliver v. United States; Maine v. Thornton is reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
It is conceded that the police did not have a warrant authorizing the search, that there was no probable cause for the search, and that no exception to the warrant requirement is applicable.
A panel of the Sixth Circuit had affirmed the suppression order. 657 F. 2d 85 (1981).
The four dissenting judges contended that the open fields doctrine did not apply where, as in this case, “reasonable effortfs] [have] been made to exclude the public.” 686 F. 2d, at 372. To that extent, the dissent considered that Katz v. United States implicitly had overruled previous holdings of this Court. The dissent then concluded that petitioner had established a “reasonable expectation of privacy” under the Katz standard. Judge Lively also wrote separately to argue that the open fields doctrine applied only to lands that could be viewed by the public.
The court also discredited other information, supplied by a confidential informant, upon which the police had based their warrant application.
Respondent contends that the decision below rests upon adequate and independent state-law grounds. We do not read that decision, however, as excluding the evidence because the search violated the State Constitution. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court referred only to the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and purported to apply the Katz test; the prior state cases that the court cited also construed the Federal Constitution. In any case, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court did not articulate an independent state ground with the clarity required by Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983).
Contrary to respondent’s assertion, we do not review here the state courts’ finding as a matter of “fact” that the area searched was not an “open field. ” Rather, the question before us is the appropriate legal standard for determining whether search of that area without a warrant was lawful under the Federal Constitution.
The conflict between the two cases that we review here is illustrative of the confusion the open fields doctrine has generated among the state and federal courts. Compare, e. g., State v. Byers, 359 So. 2d 84 (La. 1978) (refusing to apply open fields doctrine); State v. Brady, 406 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1981) (same), with United States v. Lace, 669 F. 2d 46, 50-51 (CA2 1982); United States v. Freie, 545 F. 2d 1217 (CA9 1976); United States v. Brown, 473 F. 2d 952, 954 (CA5 1973); Atwell v. United States, 414 F. 2d 136, 138 (CA5 1969).
The dissent offers no basis for its suggestion that Hester rests upon some narrow, unarticulated principle rather than upon the reasoning enunciated by the Court’s opinion in that case. Nor have subsequent cases discredited Hester*s reasoning. This Court frequently has relied on the explicit language of the Fourth Amendment as delineating the scope of its affirmative protections. See, e. g., Robbins v. California, 453 U. S. 420, 426 (1981) (opinion of Stewart, J.); Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 589-590 (1980); Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 178-180 (1969). As these cases, decided after Katz, indicate, Katz’ “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard did not sever Fourth Amendment doctrine from the Amendment’s language. Katz itself construed the Amendment’s protection of the person against unreasonable searches to encompass electronic eavesdropping of telephone conversations sought to be kept private; and Katz’ fundamental recognition that “the Fourth Amendment protects people — and not simply ‘areas’ — against unreasonable searches and seizures,” see 389 U. S., at 353, is faithful to the Amendment’s language. As Katz demonstrates, the Court fairly may respect the constraints of the Constitution’s language without wedding itself to an unreasoning literalism. In contrast, the dissent’s approach would ignore the language of the Constitution itself as well as overturn this Court’s governing precedent.
The Framers would have understood the term “effects” to be limited to personal, rather than real, property. See generally Doe v. Dring, 2 M. & S. 448, 454, 105 Eng. Rep. 447, 449 (K. B. 1814) (discussing prior cases); 2 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *16, *384-*385.
The Fourth Amendment’s protection of offices and commercial buildings, in which there may be legitimate expectations of privacy, is also based upon societal expectations that have deep roots in the history of the Amendment. See Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U. S. 307, 311 (1978); G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U. S. 338, 366 (1977).
Tr. of Oral Arg. 14-15, 58. See, e. g., United States v. Allen, 675 F. 2d 1373, 1380-1381 (CA9 1980); United States v. DeBacker, 493 F. Supp. 1078, 1081 (WD Mich. 1980). In practical terms, petitioner Oliver’s and respondent Thornton’s analysis merely would require law enforcement officers, in most situations, to use aerial surveillance to gather the information necessary to obtain a warrant or to justify warrantless entry onto the property. It is not easy to see how such a requirement would advance legitimate privacy interests.
The dissent conceives of open fields as bustling with private activity as diverse as lovers’ trysts and worship services. Post, at 191-193. But in most instances police will disturb no one when they enter upon open fields. These fields, by their very character as open and unoccupied, are unlikely to provide the setting for activities whose privacy is sought to be protected by the Fourth Amendment. One need think only of the vast expanse of some western ranches or of the undeveloped woods of the Northwest to see the unreality of the dissent’s conception. Further, the Fourth Amendment provides ample protection to activities in the open fields that might implicate an individual’s privacy. An individual who enters a place defined to be “public” for Fourth Amendment analysis does not lose all claims to privacy or personal security. Cf. Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, 766-767 (1979) (Burger, C. J., concurring in judgment). For example, the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable arrest or unreasonable seizure of effects upon the person remain fully applicable. See, e. g., United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411 (1976).
Neither petitioner Oliver nor respondent Thornton has contended that the property searched was within the curtilage. Nor is it necessary in these cases to consider the scope of the curtilage exception to the open fields doctrine or the degree of Fourth Amendment protection afforded the curtilage, as opposed to the home itself. It is clear, however, that the term “open fields” may include any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the curtilage. An open field need be neither “open” nor a “field” as those terms are used in common speech. For example, contrary to respondent Thornton's suggestion, Tr. of Oral Arg. 21-22, a thickly wooded area nonetheless may be an open field as that term is used in construing the Fourth Amendment. See, e. g., United States v. Pruitt, 464 F. 2d 494 (CA9 1972); Bedell v. State, 257 Ark. 895, 521 S. W. 2d 200 (1975).
The clarity of the open fields doctrine that we reaffirm today is not sacrificed, as the dissent suggests, by our recognition that the curtilage remains within the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Most of the many millions of acres that are “open fields” are not close to any structure and so not arguably within the curtilage. And, for most homes, the boundaries of the curtilage will be clearly marked; and the conception defining the curtilage — as the area around the home to which the activity of home life extends — is a familiar one easily understood from our daily experience. The occasional difficulties that courts might have in applying this, like other, legal concepts, do not argue for the unprecedented expansion of the Fourth Amendment advocated by the dissent.
Certainly the Framers did not intend that the Fourth Amendment should shelter criminal activity wherever persons with criminal intent choose to erect barriers and post “No Trespassing” signs.
As noted above, the common-law conception of the “curtilage” has served this function.
The law of trespass recognizes the interest in possession and control of one’s property and for that reason permits exclusion of unwanted intruders. But it does not follow that the right to exclude conferred by trespass law embodies a privacy interest also protected by the Fourth Amendment. To the contrary, the common law of trespass furthers a range of interests that have nothing to do with privacy and that would not be served by applying the strictures of trespass law to public officers. Criminal laws against trespass are prophylactic: they protect against intruders who poach, steal livestock and crops, or vandalize property. And the civil action of trespass serves the important function of authorizing an owner to defeat claims of prescription by asserting his own title. See, e. g., 0. Holmes, The Common Law 98-100, 244-246 (1881). In any event, unlicensed use of property by others is presumptively unjustified, as anyone who wishes to use the property is free to bargain for the right to do so with the property owner, cf. R. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 10-13, 21 (1973). For these reasons, the law of trespass confers protections from intrusion by others far broader than those required by Fourth Amendment interests.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the Fourth Amendment is violated by aerial observation without a warrant from an altitude of 1,000 feet of a fenced-in backyard within the curtilage of a home.
I
On September 2, 1982, Santa Clara Police received an anonymous telephone tip that marijuana was growing in respondent’s backyard. Police were unable to observe the contents of respondent’s yard from ground level because of a 6-foot outer fence and a 10-foot inner fence completely enclosing the yard. Later that day, Officer Shutz, who was assigned to investigate, secured a private plane and flew over respondent’s house at an altitude of 1,000 feet, within navigable airspace; he was accompanied by Officer Rodriguez. Both officers were trained in marijuana identification. From the overflight, the officers readily identified marijuana plants 8 feet to 10 feet in height growing in a 15- by 25-foot plot in respondent’s yard; they photographed the area with a standard 35mm camera.
On September 8, 1982, Officer Shutz obtained a search warrant on the basis of an affidavit describing the anonymous tip and their observations; a photograph depicting respondent’s house, the backyard, and neighboring homes was attached to the affidavit as an exhibit. The warrant was executed the next day and 73 plants were seized; it is not disputed that these were marijuana.
After the trial court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence of the search, respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of cultivation of marijuana. The California Court of Appeal reversed, however, on the ground that the warrantless aerial observation of respondent’s yard which led to the issuance of the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. 161 Cal. App. 3d 1081, 208 Cal. Rptr. 93 (1984). That court held first that respondent’s backyard marijuana garden was within the “curtilage” of his home, under Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170 (1984). The court emphasized that the height and existence of the two fences constituted “objective criteria from which we may conclude he manifested a reasonable expectation of privacy by any standard.” 161 Cal. App. 3d, at 1089, 208 Cal. Rptr., at 97.
Examining the particular method of surveillance undertaken, the court then found it “significant” that the flyover “was not the result of a routine patrol conducted for any other legitimate law enforcement or public safety objective, but was undertaken for the specific purpose of observing this particular enclosure within [respondent’s] curtilage.” Ibid. It held this focused observation was “a direct and unauthorized intrusion into the sanctity of the home” which violated respondent’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Id., at 1089-1090, 208 Cal. Rptr., at 98 (footnote omitted). The California Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for review.
We granted the State’s petition for certiorari, 471 U. S. 1134 (1985). We reverse.
The State argues that respondent has “knowingly exposed” his backyard to aerial observation, because all that was seen was visible to the naked eye from any aircraft flying overhead. The State analogizes its mode of observation to a knothole or opening in a fence: if there is an opening, the police may look.
The California Court of Appeal, as we noted earlier, accepted the analysis that unlike the casual observation of a private person flying overhead, this flight was focused specifically on a small suburban yard, and was not the result of any routine patrol overflight. Respondent contends he has done all that can reasonably be expected to tell the world he wishes to maintain the privacy of his garden within the curtilage without covering his yard. Such covering, he argues, would defeat its purpose as an outside living area; he asserts he has not “knowingly” exposed himself to aerial views.
II
The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a person has a “constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring). Katz posits a two-part inquiry: first, has the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search? Second, is society willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable? See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 740 (1979).
Clearly — and understandably — respondent has met the test of manifesting his own subjective intent and desire to maintain privacy as to his unlawful agricultural pursuits. However, we need not address that issue, for the State has not challenged the finding of the California Court of Appeal that respondent had such an expectation. It can reasonably be assumed that the 10-foot fence was placed to conceal the marijuana crop from at least street-level views. So far as the normal sidewalk traffic was concerned, this fence served that purpose, because respondent “took normal precautions to maintain his privacy.” Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98, 105 (1980).
Yet a 10-foot fence might not shield these plants from the eyes of a citizen or a policeman perched on the top of a truck or a two-level bus. Whether respondent therefore manifested a subjective expectation of privacy from all observations of his backyard, or whether instead he manifested merely a hope that no one would observe his unlawful gardening pursuits, is not entirely clear in these circumstances. Respondent appears to challenge the authority of government to observe his activity from any vantage point or place if the viewing is motivated by a law enforcement purpose, and not the result of a casual, accidental observation.
We turn, therefore, to the second inquiry under Katz, i. e., whether that expectation is reasonable. In pursuing this inquiry, we must keep in mind that “[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly ‘private’ activity,” but instead “whether the government’s intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment.” Oliver, supra, at 181-183.
Respondent argues that because his yard was in the curtilage of his home, no governmental aerial observation is permissible under the Fourth Amendment without a warrant. The history and genesis of the curtilage doctrine are instructive. “At common law, the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the ‘sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.’” Oliver, supra, at 180 (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630 (1886)). See 4 Blackstone, Commentaries *225. The protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a protection of families and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically, where privacy expectations are most heightened. The claimed area here was immediately adjacent to a suburban home, surrounded by high double fences. This close nexus to the home would appear to encompass this small area within the curtilage. Accepting, as the State does, that this yard and its crop fall within the curtilage, the question remains whether naked-eye observation of the curtilage by police from an aircraft lawfully operating at an altitude of 1,000 feet violates an expectation of privacy that is reasonable.
That the area is within the curtilage does not itself bar all police observation. The Fourth Amendment protection of the home has never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares. Nor does the mere fact that an individual has taken measures to restrict some views of his activities preclude an officer’s observations from a public vantage point where he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible. E. g., United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 282 (1983). “What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” Katz, supra, at 351.
The observations by Officers Shutz and Rodriguez in this case took place within public navigable airspace, see 49 U. S. C. App. §1304, in a physically nonintrusive manner; from this point they were able to observe plants readily discernible to the naked eye as marijuana. That the observation from aircraft was directed at identifying the plants and the officers were trained to recognize marijuana is irrelevant. Such observation is precisely what a judicial officer needs to provide a basis for a warrant. Any member of the public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything that these officers observed. On this record, we readily conclude that respondent’s expectation that his garden was protected from such observation is unreasonable and is not an expectation that society is prepared to honor.
The dissent contends that the Court ignores Justice Harlan’s warning in his concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S., at 361-362, that the Fourth Amendment should not be limited to proscribing only physical intrusions onto private property. Post, at 215-216. But Justice Harlan’s observations about future electronic developments and the potential for electronic interference with private communications, see Katz, supra, at 362, were plainly not aimed at simple visual observations from a public place. Indeed, since Katz the Court has required warrants for electronic surveillance aimed at intercepting private conversations. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297 (1972).
Justice Harlan made it crystal clear that he was resting on the reality that one who enters a telephone booth is entitled to assume that his conversation. is not being intercepted. This does not translate readily into a rule of constitutional dimensions that one who grows illicit drugs in his backyard is “entitled to assume” his unlawful conduct will not be observed by a passing aircraft — or by a power company repair mechanic on a pole overlooking the yard. As Justice Harlan emphasized,
“a man’s home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the ‘plain view’ of outsiders are not ‘protected’ because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable.” Katz, supra, at 361.
One can reasonably doubt that in 1967 Justice Harlan considered an aircraft within the category of future “electronic” developments that could stealthily intrude upon an individual’s privacy. In an age where private and commercial flight in the public airways is routine, it is unreasonable for respondent to expect that his marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet. The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.
Reversed.
Because the parties framed the issue in the California courts below and in this Court as concerning only the reasonableness of aerial observation generally, see Pet. for Cert, i, without raising any distinct issue as to the photograph attached as an exhibit to the affidavit in support of the search warrant, our analysis is similarly circumscribed. It was the officer’s observation, not the photograph, that supported the warrant. Officer Shutz testified that the photograph did not identify the marijuana as such because it failed to reveal a “true representation” of the color of the plants: “you have to see it with the naked eye.” App. 36.
The California Court of Appeal recognized that police have the right to use navigable airspace, but made a pointed distinction between police aircraft focusing on a particular home and police aircraft engaged in a “routine patrol.” It concluded that the officers’ “focused” observations violated respondent’s reasonable expectations of privacy. In short, that court concluded that a regular police patrol plane identifying respondent’s marijuana would lead to a different result. Whether this is a rational distinction is hardly relevant, although we find difficulty understanding exactly how respondent’s expectations of privacy from aerial observation might differ when two airplanes pass overhead at identical altitudes, simply for different purposes. We are cited to no authority for this novel analysis or the conclusion it begat. The fact that a ground-level observation by police “focused” on a particular place is not different from a “focused” aerial observation under the Fourth Amendment.
In Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, post, p. 227, decided today, we hold that the use of an aerial mapping camera to photograph an industrial manufacturing complex from navigable airspace similarly does not require a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The State acknowledges that “[ajerial observation of curtilage may become invasive, either due to physical intrusiveness or through modern technology which discloses to the senses those intimate associations, objects or activities otherwise imperceptible to police or fellow citizens.” Brief for Petitioner 14-15.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Horace Butler was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Pamela Lane. After his conviction became final on direct appeal, Butler collaterally attacked his conviction by way of a petition for federal habeas corpus. Butler relied on our decision in Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U. S. 675 (1988), decided after his conviction became final on direct appeal. We have held, however, that a new decision generally is not applicable in cases on collateral review unless the decision was dictated by precedent existing at the time the petitioner’s conviction became final. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989); Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). We hold that our ruling in Roberson was not so dictated and that Butler’s claim is not within either of two narrow exceptions to the general rule.
Pamela Lane, a clerk at a convenience store near Charleston, South Carolina, was last seen alive when she left work riding a moped late in the evening of July 17, 1980. The next day several fishermen discovered Lane’s body near a bridge, and the following day a local minister found Lane’s moped submerged in a pond behind his church.
Petitioner Butler was arrested six weeks later on an unrelated assault and battery charge and placed in the Charleston County Jail. After invoking his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, Butler retained counsel who appeared with him at a bond hearing on August 31, 1980. He was unable to make bond, however, and was returned to the county jail. Butler’s attorney would later contend in state collateral relief proceedings that after the bond hearing, he had told the police officers not to question Butler further. The officers testified that they remembered no such instruction.
Early in the morning of September 1, 1980, Butler was taken from the jail to the Charleston County Police station. He was then informed for the first time that he was a suspect in Lane’s murder. After receiving Miranda warnings, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), Butler indicated that he understood his rights and signed two “waiver of rights” forms. The police then interrogated Butler about the murder. Butler did not request his attorney’s presence at any time during the interrogation.
Butler offered two explanations for Lane’s death. First, he claimed that a friend, one White, killed Lane and then sought Butler’s help in disposing of the moped. When his interrogators evidenced skepticism over this statement, Butler tried again. He said that he had come upon Lane in his car and had motioned her over to the side of the road. She then voluntarily accompanied him in a drive to a nearby wooded area where the two engaged in consensual sex. Afterwards Lane threatened to accuse Butler of rape when she realized she would be late getting home. Butler maintained that he panicked, shot Lane with a handgun, and dumped her body off a bridge. In this version of the story, Butler asserted that White helped him dispose of the moped. Butler later took the police to the locations of the various events culminating in Lane’s death.
The State indicted Butler and brought him to trial on a charge of first-degree murder. The trial court denied Butler’s motion to suppress the statements given to police, and the statements were introduced into evidence. The jury found Butler guilty and, in a separate proceeding, sentenced him to death concluding that hé committed the murder during the commission of a rape. The Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld Butler’s conviction on direct appeal, State v. Butler, 277 S. C. 452, 290 S. E. 2d 1, and we denied certiorari. Butler v. South Carolina, 459 U. S. 932 (1982). Subsequently, Butler unsuccessfully petitioned for collateral relief in the State’s courts, see Butler v. State, 286 S. C. 441, 334 S. E. 2d 813 (1985), and we again denied certiorari. Butler v. South Carolina, 474 U. S. 1094 (1986).
In May 1986, Butler filed this petition for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2254. As characterized by the District Court, one question raised in the petition was “whether police had the right to initiate questioning about the murder knowing petitioner had retained an attorney for the assault charge.” App. 119. The District Court dismissed the petition on respondents’ motion for summary judgment.
On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, see Butler v. Aiken, 846 F. 2d 255 (1988), Butler argued that Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 (1981), requires the police, during continuous custody, to refrain from all further questioning once an accused invokes his right to counsel on any offense. In support of his argument, Butler relied principally on United States ex rel. Espinoza v. Fairman, 813 F. 2d 117 (CA7 1987). The Court of Appeals rejected Butler’s Espinoza-based contention, finding the Seventh Circuit’s ruling an unpersuasive and “dramatic” extension of Edivards. Butler, 846 F. 2d, at 258.
The court concluded that Butler’s statements were preceded by appropriate warnings and a voluntary waiver of Fifth Amendment protections. The statements, therefore, were not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights or Edwards’ prophylactic rule. According to the court, a properly initiated interrogation on an entirely different charge does not intrude into an accused’s previously invoked rights but instead offers the accused an opportunity to weigh his rights intelligently in light of changed circumstances. When, as occurred in this case, the accused then freely waives any constitutional right to counsel and provides voluntary statements of an incriminating nature, there is no justification for undermining the search for the truth by suppressing those statements. Butler, 846 F. 2d, at 259. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Butler’s petition, and approximately one month later, denied Butler’s request for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc.
On the same day the court denied Butler’s rehearing petitions, we handed down our decision in Roberson. We held in Roberson that the Fifth Amendment bars police-initiated interrogation following a suspect’s request for counsel in the context of a separate investigation. 486 U. S., at 682. On Butler’s motion for reconsideration, the original Fourth Circuit panel considered Butler’s new contention that Roberson requires suppression of his statements taken in the separate investigation of Lane’s murder. Although the panel conceded that the substance of its prior conclusion “was cast into immediate and serious doubt” by our subsequent decision in Roberson, Butler v. Aiken, 864 F. 2d 24, 25 (1988), it nevertheless determined that Butler was not entitled to the retroactive benefit of Roberson. According to the panel, the Edwards-Roberson limitations on police interrogation are only tangentially related to the truth-finding function. 864 F. 2d, at 25. They are viewed most accurately as part of the prophylactic protection of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel created to be “guidelines” for the law enforcement profession. Ibid, (citing Roberson, supra, at 680-682). The interrogation of Butler, while unquestionably contrary to present “guidelines,” was conducted in strict accordance with established law at the time. The panel, therefore, denied Butler’s petition for rehearing. A majority of the Circuit Judges denied, over a dissent, Butler’s petition for a rehearing en banc. We granted certiorari, 490 U. S. 1045 (1989), and now affirm.
Last Term in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989), we held that in both capital and noncapital cases, “new rules will not be applied or announced in cases on collateral review unless they fall into one of two exceptions.” Id., at 313 (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S., at 311-313; see infra, at 415-416 (discussing the exceptions and their inapplicability to the instant case). Referring to Teague, we reiterated that, in general, a case announces a “new rule” when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government. Penry, 492 U. S., at 314. Put differently, and, .indeed, more meaningfully for the majority of cases, a decision announces a new rule “ ‘if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.’” Ibid, (quoting Teague, supra, at 301) (emphasis in original).
A new decision that explicitly overrules an earlier holding obviously “breaks new ground” or “imposes a new obligation.” In the vast majority of cases, however, where the new decision is reached by an extension of the reasoning of previous cases, the inquiry will be more difficult. We said in Teague:
“ ‘The relevant frame of reference ... is not the purpose of the new rule whose benefit the [defendant] seeks, but instead the purposes for which the writ of habeas corpus is made available.’ Mackey[v. United States, 401 U. S. 667, 682 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part)]. . . . ‘The interest in leaving concluded litigation in a state of repose . . : may quite legitimately be found by those responsible for defining the scope of the writ to outweigh in some, many, or most instances the competing interest in readjudicating convictions according to all legal standards in effect when a habeas petition is filed.’ . . . Given the ‘broad scope of constitutional issues cognizable on habeas,’ ... it is ‘sounder, in adjudicating habeas petitions, generally to apply the law prevailing at the time a conviction became final than it is to seek to dispose of [habeas] cases on the basis of intervening changes in constitutional interpretation.’ . . . ‘[T]he threat of habeas serves as a necessary additional incentive for trial and appellate courts throughout the land to conduct their proceedings in a manner consistent with established constitutional standards. In order to perform this deterrence function, . . . the habeas court need only apply the constitutional standards that prevailed at the time the original proceedings took place.’” Teague, supra, at 306 (plurality opinion) (emphasis added; some brackets in original; some internal citations omitted).
Teague further observed:
“[I]n many ways the application of new rules to cases on collateral review may be more intrusive than the enjoining of [state] criminal prosecutions ... for it continually forces the States to marshal resources in order to keep in prison defendants whose trials and appeals conformed to then-existing constitutional standards. Furthermore, as we recognized in Engle v. Isaac,[456 U. S. 107, 128, n. 33 (1982),] ‘[s]tate courts are understandably frustrated when they faithfully apply existing constitutional law only to have a federal court discover, during a [habeas] proceeding, new constitutional commands.’ . . . See also Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S.[443], 534 [(1953)] (Jackson, J., concurring in result) (state courts cannot ‘anticipate, and so comply with, this Court’s due process requirements or ascertain any standards to which this Court will adhere in prescribing them’).” Teague, supra, at 310 (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original; some internal citations omitted).
The “new rule” principle therefore validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts even though they are shown to be contrary to later decisions. Cf. United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 918-919 (1984) (assuming the exclusionary rule “effectively deters some police misconduct and provides incentives for the law enforcement profession as a whole to conduct itself in accord with the Fourth Amendment, it cannot be expected, and should not be applied, to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity”).
Butler contends that Roberson did not establish a new rule and is, therefore, available to support his habeas petition. Butler argues that Roberson was merely an application of Edwards to a slightly different set of facts. Brief for Petitioner 9; Reply Brief for Petitioner 18. In support of his position, Butler points out that the majority had said that Roberson’s case was directly controlled by Edwards. Brief for Petitioner 10. At oral argument Butler’s counsel also pointed out.that the Roberson opinion had rejected Arizona’s request to create an “exception” to Edivards for interrogations concerning separate investigations. Tr. of Oral Arg. 4. According to counsel, the opinion in Roberson showed that the Court believed Roberson’s case to be within the “logical compass” of Edwards. Tr. of Oral Arg. passim.
But the fact that a court says that its decision is within the “logical compass” of an earlier decision, or indeed that it is “controlled” by a prior decision, is not conclusive for purposes of deciding whether the current decision is a “new rule” under Teague. Courts frequently view their decisions as being “controlled” or “governed” by prior opinions even when aware of reasonable contrary conclusions reached by other courts. In Roberson, for instance, the Court found Edwards controlling but acknowledged a significant difference of opinion on the part of several lower courts that had considered the question previously. 486 U. S., at 679, n. 3. That the outcome in Roberson was susceptible to debate among reasonable minds is evidenced further by the differing positions taken by the judges of the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Seventh Circuits noted previously. It would not have been an illogical or even a grudging application of Edwards to decide that it did not extend to the facts of Roberson. We hold, therefore, that Roberson announced a “new rule.”
The question remains whether the new rule in Roberson nevertheless comes within one of the two recognized exceptions under which a new rule is available on collateral review. Under the first exception, “a new rule should be applied retroactively if it places ‘certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe.’” Teague, 489 U. S., at 307 (plurality opinion) (quoting Mackey, 401 U. S. 667, 692 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part)). This exception is clearly inapplicable. The proscribed conduct in the instant case is capital murder, the prosecution of which is, to put it mildly, not prohibited by the rule in Roberson. Nor did Roberson address any “categorical guarantees accorded by the Constitution” such as a prohibition on the imposition of a particular punishment on a certain class of offenders. See Penry, 492 U. S., at 329.
Under the second exception, a new rule may be applied on collateral review “if it requires the observance of ‘those procedures that . . . are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”’” Teague, supra, at 311 (plurality opinion) (quoting Mackey, supra, at 693 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part) (in turn quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937) (Cardozo, J.))). Teague, it should be noted, however, discerned a latent danger in relying solely on this famous language from Palko:
“Were we to employ the Palko test without more, we would be doing little more than importing into a very different context the terms of the debate over incorporation. . . . Reviving the Palko test now, in this area of law, would be unnecessarily anachronistic. . . . [W]e believe that Justice Harlan’s concerns about the difficulty in identifying both the existence and the value of accuracy-enhancing procedural rules can be addressed by limiting the scope of the second exception to those new procedures without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished.
“Because we operate from the premise that such procedures would be so central to an accurate determination of innocence or guilt, we believe it unlikely that many such components of basic due process have yet to emerge.” Teague, supra, at 312-313 (plurality opinion).
Because a violation of Roberson’s added restrictions on police investigatory procedures would not seriously diminish the likelihood of obtaining an accurate determination — indeed, it may increase that likelihood — we conclude that Roberson did not establish any principle that would come within the second exception.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice Harlan 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:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In these consolidated cases, we are asked by 26 private telephone companies and the United States to sustain the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that orders of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) respecting the depreciation of telephone plant and equipment pre-empt inconsistent state regulation. They are opposed by the Public Service Commissions of 23 States, backed by 30 amici curiae, who argue that the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., expressly denied the FCC authority to establish depreciation practices and charges insofar as they relate to the setting of rates for intrastate telephone service.
Respondents suggest that the heart of the cases is whether the revolution in telecommunications occasioned by the federal policy of increasing competition in the industry will be thwarted by state regulators who have yet to recognize or accept this national policy and who thus refuse to permit telephone companies to employ accurate accounting methods designed to reflect, in part, the effects of competition. We are told that already there may be as much as $26 billion worth of “reserve deficiencies” on the books of the Nation’s local telephone companies, a reserve which, it is insisted, represents inadequate depreciation of a magnitude that threatens the financial ability of the industry to achieve the technological progress and provide the quality of service that the Act was passed to promote. Petitioners answer that the Act clearly establishes a system of dual state and federal authority over telephone service. They contend that the Act vests in the States exclusive power over intrastate rate-making, which power, petitioners argue, includes final authority over how depreciation shall be calculated for the purpose of setting those intrastate rates. Petitioners note also that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily represents a check on the power of the States to set depreciation rates at what would amount to confiscatory levels, and that respondents therefore overstate the danger of the States crippling the financial vitality of phone companies.
In deciding these cases, it goes without saying that we do not assess the wisdom of the asserted federal policy of encouraging competition within the telecommunications industry. Nor do we consider whether the FCC should have the authority to enforce, as it sees fit, practices which it believes would best effectuate this purpose. Important as these issues may be, our task is simply to determine where Congress has placed the responsibility for prescribing depreciation methods to be used by state commissions in setting rates for intrastate telephone service. In our view, the language, structure, and legislative history of the Act best support petitioners’ position that the Act denies the FCC the power to dictate to the States as it has in these cases, and accordingly, we reverse.
I
The Act establishes, among other things, a system of dual state and federal regulation over telephone service, and it is the nature of that division of authority that these cases are about. In broad terms, the Act grants to the FCC the authority to regulate “interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication,” 47 U. S. C. § 151, while expressly denying that agency “jurisdiction with respect to... intrastate communication service....” 47 U. S. C. § 152(b). However, while the Act would seem to divide the world of domestic telephone service neatly into two hemispheres — one comprised of interstate service, over which the FCC would have plenary authority, and the other made up of intrastate service, over which the States would retain exclusive jurisdiction — in practice, the realities of technology and economics belie such a clean parceling of responsibility. This is so because virtually all telephone plant that is used to provide intrastate service is also used to provide interstate service, and is thus conceivably within the jurisdiction of both state and federal authorities. Moreover, because the same carriers provide both interstate and intrastate service, actions taken by federal and state regulators within their respective domains necessarily affect the general financial health of those carriers, and hence their ability to provide service, in the other “hemisphere.”
In 1980 and 1981, the FCC issued two orders that ultimately sparked this litigation. In the 1980 order the FCC changed two depreciation practices affecting telephone plant. Property Depreciation, 83 F. C. C. 2d 267, reconsideration denied, 87 F. C. C. 2d 916 (1981). First, the order altered how carriers could group property subject to depreciation. Because carriers employ so many individual items of equipment in providing service, it would be impossible to depreciate each item individually, and property is therefore classified and depreciated in groups. The order permitted companies the option of grouping plant for depreciation purposes based on its estimated service life (the “equal life” approach). This replaced the FCC’s prior practice of requiring companies to classify and depreciate property according to its year of installation (the “vintage year” method). This change was made to allow depreciation to be based on smaller and more homogeneous groupings, which, the FCC concluded, would result in more accurate matching of capital recovery with capital consumption.
The 1980 order further sought to promote improved accounting accuracy by replacing “whole life” depreciation with the “remaining life” method. Under remaining life, and unlike the treatment under a whole life regime, if estimates upon which depreciation schedules are premised prove erroneous, they may be corrected in midcourse in a way that assures that the full cost of the asset will ultimately be recovered.
The third FCC-mandated change in plant depreciation was announced in a 1981 order, and involved the cost of labor and material associated with the installation of wire inside the premises of a business or residence. The new rule provided that this so-called “inside wiring” no longer be treated as a capital investment to be depreciated over time, but rather as a cost to be “expensed” in the year incurred. Uniform System of Accounts, 85 F. C. C. 2d 818.
Later in 1981, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) petitioned the FCC for a “clarification” of its order respecting inside wiring. Specifically, NARUC sought a declaration that the FCC’s order did not restrict the discretion of state commissions to follow different depreciation practices in computing revenue requirements and rates for intrastate services.
On April 27, 1982, the FCC issued a memorandum opinion and order in which it agreed with NARUC that its order respecting the depreciation of inside wiring did not preclude state regulators “from using their own accounting and depreciation procedures for intrastate ratemaking purpose[s]... Uniform System of Accounts, 89 F. C. C. 2d 1094, 1095. In reaching this conclusion, the FCC declared that it had not intended the 1981 order to “have any preemptive effect that does not arise by operation of law,” and added that “[n]o policy of this Commission would be furthered by requiring state commissions to adhere to the rules we have adopted for the purposes of computing the interstate revenue requirement.” Id., at 1097. The FCC then examined the language and legislative history of sections of the Act dealing with jurisdiction and depreciation and found that they did not support the position that unwilling state commissions either were required by operation of law or could be required in the discretion of the FCC to follow all accounting and depreciation methods prescribed by the Commission. Two commissioners issued a written dissent in which they argued that the FCC had, in its 1981 order, intended to pre-empt inconsistent state depreciation practices, and that deference to the States was especially inappropriate where an important federal policy — that of maturing a “brave new world” of competition in the industry — was at stake.
Respondents petitioned for reconsideration of the order, and the FCC reversed itself and held that § 220 of the Act, which deals expressly with depreciation, does operate automatically to pre-empt inconsistent state action where the Commission has acted to prescribe depreciation rates for a carrier. Amendment of Part 31, 92 F. C. C. 2d 864 (1983). As an alternative ground in support of pre-emption, the FCC asserted that federal displacement of state regulation is justifiable under the Act when necessary “to avoid frustration of validly adopted federal policies.” Id., at 875. Applying this standard to the facts before it, the FCC then found preemption appropriate. It noted that “adequate capital recovery is important to ‘make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges...’ 47 U. S. C. 151,” and that “[s]tate depreciation rate prescriptions that do not adequately provide for capital recovery in the competitive environment, which constitutes this Commission’s policy in those markets found capable of supporting competition, would frustrate the accomplishment of that policy and are preemptable by this Commission.” 92 F. C. C. 2d, at 876.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Virginia State Corporation Comm’n v. FCC, 737 F. 2d 388 (1984). It acknowledged that the Act “does reserve to the states the authority to prescribe rates for intrastate telephone service,” but determined that “reservation [of authority] is not to be read as preserving the states’ sphere of intrastate jurisdiction at the expense of an efficient, viable interstate telecommunications network.” Id., at 392. The court then noted that the FCC had intended to pre-empt state practices, held that the authority to do so was statutorily entrusted to the FCC, and found that the regulations at issue were reasonably designed to ensure that federal objectives would not be frustrated. The Court of Appeals did not reach the Commission’s holding that § 220 of the Act automatically operates to pre-empt state-prescribed depreciation at odds with depreciation ordered by the FCC. We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. 472 U. S. 1025 (1985).
II
Both petitioners and respondents characterize this litigation as one in which two different persons seek to drive one car, a condition the parties agree is unsatisfactory. Where the parties disagree is with respect to who ought to be displaced from the controls. In order to address the contentions, it is appropriate to consider not only the structure of the Act and how it divides authority, but also the nature and function of depreciation as a component of utility regulation.
Depreciation is defined as the loss in service value of a capital asset over time. In the context of public utility accounting and regulation, it is a process of charging the cost of depreciable property, adjusted for net salvage, to operating expense accounts over the useful life of the asset. Thus, accounting practices significantly affect, among other things, the rates that customers pay for service. This is so because a regulated carrier is entitled to recover its reasonable expenses and a fair return on its investment through the rates it charges its customers, and because depreciation practices contribute importantly to the calculation of both the carrier’s investment and its expenses. See Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 212 U. S. 1, 13-14 (1909). See generally, 1 A. Priest, Principles of Public Utility Regulation (1969); P. Garfield & W. Lovejoy, Public Utility Economics (1964); 1 A. Kahn, Economics of Regulation (1970).
The total amount that a carrier is entitled to charge for services, its “revenue requirement,” is the sum of its current operating expenses, including taxes and depreciation expenses, and a return on its investment “rate base.” The original cost of a given item of equipment enters the rate base when that item enters service. As it depreciates over time — as a function of wear and tear or technological obsolescence — the rate base is reduced according to a depreciation schedule that is based on an estimate of the item’s expected useful life. Each year the amount that is removed from the rate base is included as an operating expense. In the telephone industry, which is extremely capital intensive, depreciation charges constitute a significant portion of the annual revenue requirement recovered in rates; the parties agree that depreciation charges amount to somewhere between 10% to 15% of the intrastate revenue requirement.
In essence, petitioners’ argument is that the plain and unambiguous language of § 152(b) denies the FCC power to compel the States to employ FCC-set depreciation practices and schedules in connection with the setting of intrastate rates. In part, that section provides:
“[N]othing in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service by wire or radio of any carrier....”
Petitioners maintain that “charges,” “classifications,” and “practices” are “terms of art” which denote depreciation and accounting, and thus that the question presented by these cases is expressly answered by the statute. They argue also that the legislative history shows on a more general level that § 152(b) was intended to reserve to the States exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over intrastate service, especially intrastate ratemaking, and that given the importance of depreciation to ratemaking, to require state regulators to follow FCC depreciation practices would frustrate the statutory design of preserving the States’ ratemaking authority over intrastate service. Petitioners maintain that to confer this power on the FCC would be, in effect, to write the jurisdictional limitation of § 152(b) out of the Act.
Where petitioners focus on § 152(b), respondents’ principal argument is that this litigation turns on §220 of the Act, which they insist constitutes an unambiguous grant of power to the FCC exclusively to regulate depreciation. Their argument is that once the FCC has acted pursuant to that section, States are automatically precluded from prescribing different depreciation practices or rates. Section 220(b) states:
“The Commission shall, as soon as practicable, prescribe for such carriers the classes of property for which depreciation charges may be properly included under operating expenses, and the percentages of depreciation which shall be charged with respect to each of such classes of property, classifying the carriers as it may deem proper for this purpose. The Commission may, when it deems necessary, modify the classes and percentages so prescribed. Such carriers shall not, after the Commission has prescribed the [classes] of property for which depreciation charges may be included, charge to operating expenses any depreciation charges on classes of property other than those prescribed by the Commission, or after the Commission has prescribed percentages of depreciation, charge with respect to any class of property a percentage of depreciation other than that prescribed therefor by the Commission. No such carrier shall in any case include in any form under its operating or other expenses any depreciation or other charge or expenditure included elsewhere as a depreciation charge or otherwise under its operating or other expenses.”
Respondents assert that their understanding of § 220(b) is bolstered by other substantive provisions of §220. They note, for example, that under § 220(g), once the FCC has prescribed the “forms and manner of keeping accounts,” it is “unlawful... to keep any other accounts... than those so prescribed... or to keep the accounts in any other manner than that prescribed or approved by the Commission,” and that subsections (d) and (e) of § 220 provide for civil and criminal penalties for failing to keep accounts as determined by the Commission. Moreover, § 220(h) permits the FCC in its discretion, if it finds such action to be “consistent with the public interest,” to “except the carriers of any particular class or classes in any State from any of the requirements” under the section “in cases where such carriers are subject to State commission regulation with respect to matters to which this section relates.” Respondents argue that this provision strongly suggests that unless the FCC affirmatively acts to waive or delegate its authority, i. e., to “except” carriers from its regulation, then under § 220(h) the States impliedly cannot adopt inconsistent regulations. Respondents also assert that §220(i) makes clear that the role of the States in depreciation is essentially advisory only. That section provides that the FCC, before exercising its authority, “shall notify” the state commissions and provide an opportunity to the States to “present [their] views” and also instructs the FCC to “consider such views and recommendations.” According to respondents, “Congress gave the states an opportunity to present their views because it expected them to be bound by the resulting prescriptions.” Joint Brief for Listed Private Respondents 14 (Joint Brief). In sum, the position of respondents is that “Congress clearly intended that there be one regime — rather than multiple regimes — of depreciation for each subject carrier. The FCC was given responsibility for establishing such a regime, and its depreciation decisions have to be respected unless and until it relinquishes authority to the states in individual instances. The states’ interest is recognized but their role is confined to providing their Views and recommendations.’” Ibid.
Although respondents rely primarily on §220 to support pre-emption, they also urge as an alternative and independent ground the reasoning relied on by the Court of Appeals, namely that the FCC is entitled to pre-empt inconsistent state regulation which frustrates federal policy. It is in the context of this argument that respondents most forcefully contend that state regulators must not be permitted to jeopardize the continued viability of the telecommunications industry by refusing to permit carriers to depreciate plant in a way that allows for accurate and timely recapturing of capital. This argument, which is pressed especially by the Solicitor General, relies largely on §151, which in broad terms directs the FCC to develop a rapid and efficient national telephone network.
Ill
The Supremacy Clause of Art. VI of the Constitution provides Congress with the power to pre-empt state law. Preemption occurs when Congress, in enacting a federal statute, expresses a clear intent to pre-empt state law, Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519 (1977), when there is outright or actual conflict between federal and state law, e. g., Free v. Bland, 369 U. S. 663 (1962), where compliance with both federal and state law is in effect physically impossible, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132 (1963), where there is implicit in federal law a barrier to state regulation, Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85 (1983), where Congress has legislated comprehensively, thus occupying an entire field of regulation and leaving no room for the States to supplement federal law, Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218 (1947), or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full objectives of Congress. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 (1941). Pre-emption may result not only from action taken by Congress itself; a federal agency acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority may pre-empt state regulation. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141 (1982); Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U. S. 691 (1984).
In the present cases, two of these “varieties” of preemption are alleged. As noted above, respondents argue that §220 by its terms confers exclusive regulatory power over depreciation on the FCC, thus raising a claim that Congress has expressly manifested a clear intent to displace state law. In addition, respondents maintain that the refusal of the States to accept the FCC-set depreciation schedules and rules will frustrate the federal policy of increasing competition in the industry, and thus that state regulation “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” In our view, the jurisdictional limitations placed on the FCC by § 152(b), coupled with the fact that the Act provides for a “separations” proceeding to determine the portions of a single asset that are used for interstate and intrastate service, 47 U. S. C. § 410(c), answer both pre-emption theories.
The critical question in any pre-emption analysis is always whether Congress intended that federal regulation supersede state law. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., supra. The Act itself declares that its purpose is “regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges....” 47 U. S. C. §151. In order to accomplish this goal, Congress created the FCC to centralize and consolidate the regulatory responsibility that had previously been the province of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Radio Commission under predecessor statutes. See generally McKenna, Pre-Emption Under the Communications Act, 37 Fed. Comm. L. J. 1, 12-18 (1985). To this degree, § 151 may be read as lending some support to respondents’ position that state regulation which frustrates the ability of the FCC to perform its statutory function of ensuring efficient, nationwide phone service may be impliedly barred by the Act.
We might be inclined to accept this broad reading of § 151 were it not for the express jurisdictional limitations on FCC power contained in § 152(b). Again, that section asserts that “nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service....” By its terms, this provision fences off from FCC reach or regulation intrastate matters — indeed, including matters “in connection with” intrastate service. Moreover, the language with which it does so is certainly as sweeping as the wording of the provision declaring the purpose of the Act and the role of the FCC.
In interpreting §§ 151 and 152(b), we are guided by the familiar rule of construction that, where possible, provisions of a statute should be read so as not to create a conflict. Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112 (1879). We agree with petitioners that the sections are naturally reconciled to define a national goal of the creation of a rapid and efficient phone service, and to enact a dual regulatory system to achieve that goal. Moreover, were we to find the sections to be in conflict, we would be disinclined to favor the provision declaring a general statutory purpose, as opposed to the provision which defines the jurisdictional reach of the agency formed to implement that purpose.
Respondents advance a number of arguments to counter the view that § 152(b) forbids the FCC to prescribe depreciation practices and charges in the context of ratemaking for intrastate service. We address each in turn.
A
Respondents assert that the legislative history of § 152(b), as well as the structure of the Act, shows that “charges” and “classifications” refer only to “customer charges,” not depreciation charges, and thus that § 152(b) does not purport to limit the FCC power to regulate depreciation. They seek to support this narrow reading of § 152(b) by noting that the words “charges,” “classifications,” “practices,” and “regulations” appear throughout the Act in contexts where it is clear that what is meant is charges which relate directly to carriers’ rate and service relationships with their customers, rather than depreciation or accounting charges. See §§201-205. Reading the sections in pari materia, we are told, makes it apparent that Congress was concerned in § 152(b) with preserving state autonomy over the rates charged by carriers for specific services, not over depreciation. According to respondents, this reading is bolstered by the legislative history of the section, which reveals that the provision was proposed by state regulators in reaction to this Court’s decision in the so-called Shreveport Rate Case, Houston, E. & W. T. R. Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 342 (1914), which held, among other things, that the Interstate Commerce Commission had the power to order an increase in specific intrastate railroad rates charged to customers in order to avoid discrimination against interstate commerce. “In other words, Section 2(b)(1) was from the outset concerned with protection against federal preemption of the states’ setting of individual customer charges for specific intrastate services.” Joint Brief 34.
We reject this narrow reading of § 152(b). “Charges,” “classifications,” and “practices” are terms often used by accountants, regulators, courts, and commentators to denote depreciation treatment, see, e. g., United Railways & Elec tric Co v. West, 280 U. S. 234, 262 (1930); Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 282 U. S. 133, 158 (1930); Wheat, The Regulation of Interstate Telephone Rates, 51 Harv. L. Rev. 846, 859 (1938); A. Kahn, Economics of Regulation (1970), and in accordance with the rule of construction that technical terms of art should be interpreted by reference to the trade or industry to which they apply, Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U. S. 188 (1974), we find that they do embrace depreciation. It is worth noting that the FCC itself, in the very orders underlying this litigation, used “charges” to mean “depreciation charges.” E. g., Property Depreciation, 83 F. C. C. 2d, at 275.
Nor does the Shreveport Rate Case carry the load that respondents ask of it. In that case, this Court interpreted the constitutional and statutory authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission to include the power to regulate, indeed, set, intrastate rates in order to prevent discrimination against interstate traffic. It is certainly true, as respondents assert, that when Congress was drafting the Communications Act, § 152(b) was proposed and supported by the state commissions in reaction to what they perceived to be the evil of excessive federal regulation of intrastate service such as was sanctioned by the Shreveport Rate Case; but we find no authority in the legislative history to support respondents’ position that the sole concern of the state commissioners was with “protection against federal preemption of the states’ setting of individual customer charges for specific intrastate services.” Joint Brief 34. Rather, the legislative history reveals that representatives from the industry and the States were fully aware that what was at stake in the Act were broad powers to regulate, including, but not limited to, the setting of individual rates, and that “[t]he question of an appropriate division between federal and state regulatory power was a dominating controversy in 1934.” McKenna, 37 Fed. Comm. L. J., at 2. In other words, while we agree that provisions in both the Senate and House bills were designed to overrule the Shreveport Rate Case, we are not persuaded that it was anyone’s understanding that this “overruling” could or should be accomplished by merely including in the Act one section which forbade the FCC to establish specific rates for certain intrastate services; had this been the intention, it would hardly have been necessary to deny the FCC the jurisdiction over “charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service... Presumably, it would have sufficed simply to deny the FCC jurisdiction over “rates.” In sum, given the breadth of the language of § 152(b), and the fact that it contains not only a substantive jurisdictional limitation on the FCC’s power, but also a rule of statutory construction (“[N]othing in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to... intrastate communication service...”), we decline to accept the narrow view urged by respondents, and hold instead that it denies the FCC the power to pre-empt state regulation of depreciation for intrastate ratemaking purposes.
B
Accordingly, we cannot accept respondents’ argument that § 152(b) does not control because the plant involved in this case is used interchangeably to provide both interstate and intrastate service, and that even if § 152(b) does reserve to the state commissions some authority over “certain aspects” of intrastate communication, it should be “confined to intrastate matters which are ‘separable from and do not substantially affect’ interstate communication.” Joint Brief 36. With respect to the present cases, respondents insist that the refusal of the States to employ accurate measures of depreciation will have a severe impact on the interstate communications network because investment in plant will be recovered too slowly or not at all, with the result that new investment will be discouraged to the detriment of the entire network. Numerous decisions of the Courts of Appeals are cited as authority for the proposition that § 152(b) applies as a jurisdictional bar to FCC pre-emptive action only when two factors are present; first, when the matter to be regulated is purely local and second, when interstate communication is not affected by the state regulation which the FCC would seek to pre-empt. E. g., North Carolina Utilities Comm’n v. FCC, 537 F. 2d 787 (CA4), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1027 (1976); North Carolina Utilities Comm’n v. FCC, 552 F. 2d 1036 (CA4), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 874 (1977); Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. FCC, 553 F. 2d 694 (CA1 1977); New York Telephone Co. v. FCC, 631 F. 2d 1059 (CA2 1980).
The short answer to this argument is that it misrepresents the statutory scheme and the basis and test for pre-emption. While it is certainly true, and a basic underpinning of our federal system, that state regulation will be displaced to the extent that it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, Hines, 312 U. S., at 67, it is also true that a federal agency may pre-empt state law only when and if it is acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority. This is true for at least two reasons. First, an agency literally has no power to act, let alone pre-empt the validly enacted legislation of a sovereign State, unless and until Congress confers power upon it. Second, the best way of determining whether Congress intended the regulations of an administrative agency to displace state law is to examine the nature and scope of the authority granted by Congress to the agency. Section 152(b) constitutes, as we have explained above, a congressional denial of power to the FCC to require state commissions to follow FCC depreciation practices for intrastate ratemaking purposes. Thus, we simply cannot accept an argument that the FCC may nevertheless take action which it thinks will best effectuate a federal policy. An agency may not confer power upon itself. To permit an agency to expand its power in the face of a congressional limitation on its jurisdiction would be to grant to the agency power to override Congress. This we are both unwilling and unable to do.
Moreover, we reject the intimation — the position is not strongly pressed — that the FCC cannot help but pre-empt state depreciation regulation of joint plant if it is to fulfill its statutory obligation and determine depreciation for plant used to provide interstate service, i. e., that it makes no sense within the context of the Act to depreciate one piece of property two ways. The Communications Act not only establishes dual state and federal regulation of telephone service; it also recognizes that jurisdictional tensions may arise as a result of the fact that interstate and intrastate service are provided by a single integrated system. Thus, the Act itself establishes a process designed to resolve what is known as “jurisdictional separations” matters, by which process it may be determined what portion of an asset is employed to produce or deliver interstate as opposed to intrastate service. 47 U. S. C. §§ 221(c), 410(c). Because the separations process literally separates costs such as taxes and operating expenses between interstate and intrastate service, it facilitates the creation or recognition of distinct spheres of regulation. See Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 282 U. S. 133 (1930). As respondents concede, and as the Court of Appeals itself acknowledged, 737 F. 2d, at 396, it is certainly possible to apply different rates and methods of depreciation to plant once the correct allocation between interstate and intrastate use has been made, Brief for Respondent GTE 36, just as it is possible to determine that, for example, 75% of an employee’s time is devoted to the production of intrastate service, and only one quarter to interstate service, and to allocate the cost of that employee accordingly. Respondents maintain that if the FCC and the States apply different depreciation practices to the same property, then the “whole purpose of depreciation, which is to match depreciation charges of the equipment with the revenues generated by its use,” will be frustrated. Ibid. But this is true and a concern only to the degree that the principles, judgments, and considerations that underlie depreciation rules reflect only “real world” facts, rather than choices made by regulators partially on the basis of fact and partially on the basis of such factors as the perceived need to improve the industry’s cash flow, spur investment, subsidize one class of customer, or any other policy factor. What is really troubling respondents, of course, is their sense that state regulators will not allow them sufficient revenues. While we do not deprecate this concern, § 152(b) precludes both the FCC and this Court from providing the relief sought. As we so often admonish, only Congress can rewrite this statute.
C
We also reject respondents’ argument that §220, which deals specifically and expressly with depreciation, requires automatic pre-emption of all state regulation respecting depreciation. As noted above, § 220 directs the FCC to prescribe the classes of property for which depreciation charges may be included under operating expenses, and prohibits carriers from departing from FCC-set regulations respecting depreciation. While it is, no doubt, possible to find some support in the broad language of the section for respondents’ position, we do not find the meaning of the section so unambiguous or straightforward as to override the command of § 152(b) that “nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction” over intrastate service. We note, for example, that a very strict reading of §220 — which is what respondents urge and upon which they ultimately rely — is simply untenable. There can be no dispute, for example, regarding the fact that taxing authorities of the Federal Government are entitled to require the carriers to employ, for tax purposes, depreciation practices and schedules different from those which might be ordered by the FCC for interstate ratemaking purposes. We are advised by petitioners that carriers do, as a routine matter, keep “separate” books in this connection. Were respondents’ reading of § 220 correct, this practice would violate the Act, and taxing authorities would be compelled to compute taxation on the basis of depreciation schedules employed by the FCC for ratemaking purposes. Moreover, despite the sweeping language of § 220, nowhere does it even allude to, let alone expressly refer to, depreciation as a component of state ratemaking. Nor is the word “pre-emption” used.
It is thus at least possible, as some petitioners argue, that the section was intended to do no more than spell out the authority of the FCC over depreciation in the context of interstate regulation. It is similarly plausible, as other petitioners contend, that the section, which is captioned “Accounts, records, and memoranda,” was addressed to the plenary authority of the FCC to dictate how the carriers’ books would be kept for the purposes of financial reporting, in order to ensure that investors and regulators would be presented with an accurate picture of the financial health of the carriers. In any event, we need not, in order 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:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Where there is joint responsibility for tortious conduct, the question often arises whether those who compensate the injured party may seek contribution from other joint tortfeasors who have paid no damages or paid less than their fair share. In this case we must determine whether defendants in a suit based on an implied private right of action under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (a 10b-5 action) may seek contribution from joint tortfeasors. Without addressing the merits of the claim for contribution in this case, we hold that defendants in a 10b-5 action have a right to seek contribution as a matter of federal law.
I
Cousins Home Furnishings, Inc., made a public offering of its stock in December 1983. The stock purchasers later brought a class action against Cousins, its parent company, various officers and directors of Cousins, and two lead underwriters. The plaintiffs alleged the stock offering was misleading in material respects, in violation of §§ 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act), 48 Stat. 82, 84, 15 U. S. C. §§77k and 771, § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. §78j(b), and certain state laws. The named defendants settled with the plaintiffs for $13.5 million. Respondents, who insured most of the named defendants, funded $13 million of the settlement. Subrogated to the rights of their insureds, respondents brought this lawsuit seeking contribution from petitioners, who were the attorneys and accountants involved in the public offering. Respondents’ complaint alleged these professionals had joint responsibility for the securities violations and were liable for contribution under various theories, including a right to contribution based on the 10b-5 action central to the complaint in the original class suit.
In proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the parties disputed the principles for determining whether the insureds had paid more than their fair share of liability in the class settlement, with scant attention being paid to the underlying issue whether liability in a 10b-5 action is accompanied by any right to contribution at all. This lack of attention is understandable, for the existence of the 10b-5 right to contribution is well established in the Ninth Circuit, Smith v. Mulvaney, 827 F. 2d 558, 560 (1987), as well as in a number of other Circuits, In re Jiffy Lube Securities Litigation, 927 F. 2d 155, 160 (CA4 1991); Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F. 2d 566, 578 (CA2), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 838 (1982); Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean, 640 F. 2d 534, 557-559 (CA5 1981), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 459 U. S. 375 (1983); Heizer Corp. v. Ross, 601 F. 2d 330, 331-334 (CA7 1979).
Some three months after the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondents, 954 F. 2d 575 (CA9 1992), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit created a conflict on the basic issue whether defendants in a 10b-5 action have a right to contribution. In light of our decisions on contribution in other areas of federal law, the Eighth Circuit ruled that there can be no implied cause of action for contribution in a 10b-5 action. Chutich v. Touche Ross & Co., 960 F. 2d 721, 724 (1992). Petitioners requested that we resolve the conflict among the Circuits. We granted their petition for a writ of certiorari on the sole question presented: ‘Whether federal courts may imply a private right to contribution in Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities [and] Exchange Commission,” Pet. for Cert. i. 506 U. S. 814 (1992).
II
Requests to recognize a right to contribution for defendants liable under federal law are not unfamiliar to this Court. Twice we have declined to recognize an action for contribution under federal laws outside the arena of securities regulation. In Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers, 451 U. S. 77 (1981), we held that an employer had no right to contribution against unions alleged to be joint participants with the employer in violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Later that same Term, in Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U. S. 630 (1981), we determined that there is no right to contribution for recovery based on violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
On the other hand, we endorsed a nonstatutory right to contribution among joint tortfeasors responsible for injuring a longshoreman in Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Fritz Kopke, Inc., 417 U. S. 106 (1974). We have been careful to note that Cooper does not stand for the proposition that there is a general right to contribution under federal law. Northwest Airlines, supra, at 96-97. Indeed, the rule announced in Cooper represented an exercise of our authority to provide just and equitable remedies for cases within our admiralty jurisdiction, a jurisdiction in which the federal courts have had historic, well-recognized responsibility for the elaboration of legal doctrine. See United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U. S. 397, 409 (1975). For our purposes, therefore, Cooper is less instructive than our decisions in Texas Industries and Northwest Airlines. But the instruction we receive from the latter two eases is that they are distinguishable from, rather than parallel to, the matter now before us.
The federal interests in both Texas Industries and Northwest Airlines were defined by statutory provisions that were express in creating the substantive damages liability for which contribution was sought. Recognizing that the applicable statutes did not “implicate ‘uniquely federal interests’ of the kind that oblige courts to formulate federal common law,” Texas Industries, 451 U. S., at 642, we asked whether Congress “expressly or by clear implication” envisioned a contribution right to accompany the substantive damages right created, id., at 638, or, failing that, whether Congress “intended eourts to have the power to alter or supplement the remedies enacted,” id., at 645. See also Northwest Airlines, supra, at 91 and 97. But these inquiries are not helpful in the present context. The private right of action under Rule 10b-5 was implied by the Judiciary on the theory eourts should recognize private remedies to supplement federal statutory duties, not on the theory Congress had given an unequivocal direction to the courts to do so. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 730, 737 (1975). Thus, it would be futile to ask whether the 1934 Congress also displayed a clear intent to create a contribution right collateral to the remedy. See Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60, 76 (1992); id., at 71 (SCALIA, J., concurring).
If Texas Industries and Northwest Airlines are not controlling, petitioners tell us, then the precedents on which those cases were based do control. Those authorities caution against the creation of new causes of action. Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. Coutu, 450 U. S. 754, 770 (1981); Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U. S. 11, 15-16 (1979); Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560, 575-577 (1979). They teach that the creation of new rights ought to be left to legislatures, not courts. And, petitioners remind us, whether the right of a tortfeasor to seek contribution from those who share, or ought to share, joint liability is recognized by statute, see, e.g., Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. §§875-880 (West 1980 and Supp. 1993); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§32.001 and 32.002 (1986), or as a matter of common law, see, e. g., Goldman v. Mitchell-Fletcher Co., 292 Pa. 354, 364-365, 141 A. 231, 234-235 (1928); Davis v. Broad Street Garage, 191 Tenn. 320, 325, 232 S. W. 2d 355, 357 (1950), in both instances the right is thought to be a separate or independent cause of action. Cf. Northwest Airlines, supra, at 87, n. 17; Restatement (Second) of Torts §886A (1979).
This argument, like the argument based on Texas Industries and Northwest Airlines, would have much force were the duty to be created one governing conduct subject to liability under an express remedial provision fashioned by Congress, or one governing conduct not already subject to liability through private suit. That, however, is not the present state of the jurisprudence we consider here. The parties against whom contribution is sought are, by definition, persons or entities alleged to have violated existing securities laws and who share joint liability for that wrong under a remedial scheme established by the federal courts. Even though we are being asked to recognize a cause of action that supports a suit against these parties, the duty is but the duty to contribute for having committed a wrong that courts have already deemed actionable under federal law. The violation of the securities laws gives rise to the 10b-5 private cause of action, and the question before us is the ancillary one of how damages are to be shared among persons or entities already subject to that liability. Having implied the underlying liability in the first place, to now disavow any authority to allocate it on the theory that Congress has not addressed the issue would be most unfair to those against whom damages are assessed.
We must confront the law in its current form. The federal courts have accepted and exercised the principal responsibility for the continuing elaboration of the scope of the 10b-5 right and the definition of the duties it imposes. As we recognized in a case arising under § 14(a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78n(a), “where a legal structure of private statutory rights has developed without clear indications of congressional intent,” a federal court has the limited power to define “the contours of that structure.” Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U. S. 1088, 1104 (1991). As to this proposition we were unanimous. See ibid. (Souter, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and White, O’Connor, and Scalia, JJ.); id., at 1114 (Kennedy, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“Where an implied cause of action is well accepted by our own cases and has become an established part of the securities laws ... we should enforce it as a meaningful remedy unless we are to eliminate it altogether”). See also Blue Chip Stamps, supra, at 737 (recognizing the authority of federal courts to define “the contours of a private cause of action under Rule 10b-5” and “to flesh out the portions of the law with respect to which neither the congressional enactment nor the administrative regulations offer conclusive guidance”).
We are not alone in recognizing a judicial authority to shape, within limits, the 10b-5 cause of action. The existence of that action, and our cumulative work in its design, have been obvious legislative considerations in the enactment of two recent federal statutes. The first is the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-704, 102 Stat. 4680, which added the insider trading prohibition of § 20A to the 1934 Act. See 15 U. S. C. § 78t-l. Section 20A(d) states that “[n othing in this section shall be construed to limit or condition . . . the availability of any cause of action implied from a provision of this title.” The second statute is the recent congressional enactment respecting limitations periods for 10b-5 actions. Following our resolution two Terms ago of a difficult statute of limitations issue for 10b-5 suits, see Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S. 350 (1991), Congress intervened by limiting the retroactive effect of our decision, and the caution in its intervention is instructive. In an approach parallel to the one it adopted for the insider trading statute, Congress did no more than direct the applicable “limitation period for any private civil action implied under section 78j(b) of this title [§ 10(b) of the 1984 Act] that was commenced on or before June 19,1991 [the day prior to issuance of Lampf, Pleva].” 15 U. S. C. § 78aa-l (1988 ed., Supp. III).
We infer from these references an acknowledgment of the 10b-5 action without any further expression of legislative intent to define it. See Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U. S. 375, 384-386 (1983); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S. 353, 378-382 (1982). Indeed, the latter statute, § 78aa-l, not only treats the 10b-5 action as an accepted feature of our securities laws, but avoids entangling Congress in its formulation. That task, it would appear, Congress has left to us.
Ill
We now turn to the question whether a right to contribution is within the contours of the 10b-5 action. The parties have devoted considerable portions of their briefs to debating whether a rule of contribution or of no contribution is more efficient or more equitable. Just as we declined to rule on these matters in Texas Industries and Northwest Airlines, we decline to do so here. Our task is not to assess the relative merits of the competing rules, but rather to attempt to infer how the 1934 Congress would have addressed the issue had the 10b-5 action been included as an express provision in the 1934 Act. See Lampf, Pleva, supra, at 359; Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 200-201 (1976). We do this not as an exercise in historical reconstruction for its own sake, but to ensure that the rules established to govern the 10b-5 action are symmetrical and consistent with the overall structure of the 1934 Act and, in particular, with those portions of the 1934 Act most analogous to the private 10b-5 right of action that is of judicial creation. Although we have narrowed our discretion in this regard over the years, our goals in establishing limits for the 10b-5 action have remained the same: to ensure the action does not conflict with Congress’ own express rights of action, id., at 210, to promote clarity, consistency, and coherence for those who rely upon, or are subject to, 10b-5 liability, cf. Blue Chip Stamps, 421 U. S., at 737-744, and to effect Congress’ objectives in enacting the securities laws, Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U. S. 462, 477-478 (1977).
Inquiring about what a given Congress might have done, though not a promising venture as a general proposition, does in this case yield an answer we find convincing. It is true that the initial step, drawing some inference of congressional intent from the language of § 10(b) itself, id., at 472; Ernst & Ernst, supra, at 197, yields no answer. The text of § 10(b) provides little guidance where we are asked to specify elements or aspects of the 10b-5 apparatus unique to a private liability arrangement, including a statute of limitations, Lampf, Pleva, supra, at 359, a reliance requirement, Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U. S. 224, 243 (1988), a defense to liability, Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U. S. 299 (1985), or a right to contribution. Having made no attempt to define the precise contours of the private cause of action under § 10(b), Congress had no occasion to address how to limit, compute, or allocate liability arising from it.
There are, however, two sections of the 1934 Act, §§9 and 18 (15 U. S. C. §§ 78i and 78r), that, as we have noted, are close in structure, purpose, and intent to the 10b-5 action. Lampf, Pleva, supra, at 360-361. See also Basic Inc., supra, at 243; Bateman Eichler, supra, at 316, n. 28; Ernst & Ernst, supra, at 209, n. 28. Each confers an explicit right of action in favor of private parties and, in so doing, discloses a congressional intent regarding the definition and apportionment of liability among private parties. For two distinct reasons, these express causes of action are of particular significance in determining how Congress would have resolved the question of contribution had it provided for a private cause of action under § 10(b). First, §§9 and 18 are instructive because both “target the precise dangers that are the focus of § 10(b),” Lampf, Pleva, supra, at 360, and the intent motivating all three sections is the same — “to deter fraud and manipulative practices in the securities markets, and to ensure full disclosure of information material to investment decisions,” Randall v. Loftsgaarden, 478 U. S. 647, 664 (1986).
Second, of the eight express liability provisions contained in the 1933 and 1934 Acts, §§ 9 and 18 impose liability upon defendants who stand in a position most similar to 10b-5 defendants for the sake of assessing whether they should be entitled to contribution. All three causes of action impose direct liability on defendants for their own acts as opposed to derivative liability for the acts of others; all three involve defendants who have violated the securities law with scienter, Ernst & Ernst, supra, at 209, n. 28; all three operate in many instances to impose liability on multiple defendants acting in concert, 3 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 1739-1740, n. 178 (2d ed. 1961); and all three are based on securities provisions enacted into law by the 73d Congress. The Acts’ six other express liability provisions, on the other, hand, stand in marked contrast to the implied §10 remedy: §15 of the 1933 Act (15 U. S. C. §77o) and §20 of the 1934 Act (15 U. S. C. § 78t) impose derivative liability only; §§ 11 and 12 of the 1933 Act (15 U. S. C. §§ 77k and 111) and § 16 of the 1934 Act (15 U. S. C. §78p) do not require scienter in all instances, see Ernst & Ernst, supra, at 208; Kern County Land Co. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 411 U. S. 582, 595 (1973); § 12 of the 1933 Act and § 16 of the 1934 Act do not often -create joint defendant liability, see Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U. S. 622, 650 (1988); Kern County, supra, at 591; and § 20A of the 1934 Act (15 U. S. C. § 78t-l) was not an original liability provision in that Act, having been added to the securities laws in 1988, see Lampf Pleva, 501 U. S., at 361.
Sections 9 and 18 contain nearly identical express provisions for a right to contribution, each permitting a defendant to “recover contribution as in eases of contract from any person who, if joined in the original suit, would have been liable to make the same payment.” 15 U. S. C. §§ 78i(e) and 78r(b). These were forward-looking provisions at the time. The course of tort law in this century has been to reverse the old rule against contribution, but this movement has been confined in large part to actions in negligence. 3 F. Harper, F. James, & O. Gray, Law of Torts § 10.2, p. 42, and n. 10 (2d ed. 1986). The express contribution provisions in §§9 and 18 were, and still are, cited as important precedents because they permit contribution for intentional torts. See id., §10.2, p. 43, and n. 11; Ruder, Multiple Defendants in Securities Law Fraud Cases, 120 U. Pa. L. Rev. 597, 650-651 (1972). We think that these explicit provisions for contribution are an important, not an inconsequential, feature of the federal securities laws and that consistency requires us to adopt a like contribution rule for the right of action existing under Rule 10b-5. Given the identity of purpose behind §§ 9, 10(b), and 18, and similarity in their operation, we find no ground for ruling that allowing contribution in 10b-5 actions will frustrate the purposes of the statutory section from which it is derived.
Our conclusion is consistent with the rule adopted by the vast majority of Courts of Appeals and District Courts that have considered the question. See, e. g., In re Jiffy Lube Securities Litigation, 927 F. 2d, at 160; Smith v. Mulvaney, 827 F. 2d, at 560; Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F. 2d, at 578; Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean, 640 F. 2d, at 557-559; Heizer Corp. v. Ross, 601 F. 2d, at 331-334; In re National Student Marketing Litigation, 517 F. Supp. 1345, 1346-1349 (DC 1981); B & B Investment Club v. Kleinert’s, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 720, 724 (ED Pa. 1975); Globus, Inc. v. Law Research Service, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 955, 957-958 (SDNY 1970), aff’d per curiam, 442 F. 2d 1346 (CA2), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 941 (1971). We consider this to be of particular importance because in the more than 20 years since a right to contribution was first recognized for 10b-5 defendants, DeHass v. Empire Petroleum Co., 286 F. Supp. 809, 815-816 (Colo. 1968), aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 435 F. 2d 1223 (CA10 1970), neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor the federal courts have suggested that the contribution right detracts from the effectiveness of the 10b-5 implied action or interferes with the effective operation of the securities laws. See Brief for the Securities and Exchange Commission as Amicus Curiae 25-26. Absent any showing that the implied § 10(b) liability structure or the 1934 Act as a whole will be frustrated by finding a right to contribution paralleling the right to contribution in analogous express liability provisions, our task is complete and our resolution clear: Those charged with liability in a 10b-5 action have a right to contribution against other parties who have joint responsibility for the violation.
IV
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, a Louisiana corporation, challenges the State’s imposition of a use tax on catalogs printed at appellant’s direction outside Louisiana and shipped to prospective customers within the State. The Louisiana Court of Appeal found that this application of the use tax did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. We affirm.
HH
Appellant D. H. Holmes Company, Ltd., is a Louisiana corporation with its principal place of business and registered office in New Orleans. Holmes owns and operates 13 department stores in various locations throughout Louisiana that employ about 5,000 workers. It has approximately 500,000 credit card customers and an estimated 1,000,000 other customers within the State.
In 1979-1981, Holmes contracted with several New York companies for the design and printing of merchandise catalogs. The catalogs were designed in New York, but were actually printed in Atlanta, Boston, and Oklahoma City. From these locations, 82% of the catalogs were directly mailed to residents of Louisiana; the remainder of the catalogs were mailed to customers in Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, or were sent to Holmes for distribution at its flagship store on Canal Street in New Orleans. The catalogs were shipped free of charge to the addressee, and their entire cost (about $2 million for the 3-year period), including mailing, was borne by Holmes. Holmes did not, however, pay any sales tax where the catalogs were designed or printed.
Although the merchandise catalogs were mailed to selected customers, they contained instructions to the postal carrier to leave them with the current resident if the addressee had moved, and to return undeliverable catalogs to Holmes’ Canal Street store. Holmes freely concedes that the purpose of the catalogs was to promote sales at its stores and to instill name recognition in future buyers. The catalogs included inserts which could be used to order Holmes’ products by mail.
The Louisiana Department of Revenue and Taxation, of which appellee is the current Secretary, conducted an audit of Holmes’ tax returns for 1979-1981 and determined that it was liable for delinquent use taxes on the value of the catalogs. The Department of Revenue and Taxation assessed the use tax pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§47:302 and 47:321 (West 1970 and Supp. 1988), which are set forth in the margin. Together, §§47:302(A)(2) and 47:321(A)(2) impose a use tax of 3% on all tangible personal property used in Louisiana. “Use,” as defined elsewhere in the statute, is the exercise of any right or power over tangible personal property incident to ownership, and includes consumption, distribution, and storage. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 47:301(18) and (19) (West 1970 and Supp. 1988). The use tax is designed to compensate the State for sales tax that is lost when goods are purchased out-of-state and brought for use into Louisiana, and is calculated on the retail price the property would have brought when imported.
When Holmes refused to pay the use tax assessed against it, the State filed suit in Louisiana Civil District Court to collect the tax. In response to the State’s complaint, Holmes answered that it owed no tax under §§47:302 and 47:321 as properly applied, a position Holmes claimed was reinforced by La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §47:305(5) (West 1970). Holmes also contended that the use tax violated the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution.
After a 2-day bench trial, the District Court determined that the distribution of the catalogs in Louisiana was “intended for the use of D. H. Holmes in increasing its sales to potential customers who are residents of Louisiana.” No. 83-15523 (La. Civ. Dist. Ct., July 19, 1985), App. to Juris. Statement 12A, 21A. The court also found that “[o]nce the catalogs reach the residences of the prospective customers to whom they are addressed, Louisiana taxing authority reaches the resting place of the catalogs,” id., at 22A, and concluded that the application of the use tax statutes did not unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce. The court then ordered Holmes to pay the State $49,937.03, plus interest and attorney’s fees, which was the amount the parties stipulated as due on the use tax.
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 505 So. 2d 102 (1987). After reviewing the Louisiana use tax statute, the Court of Appeal found that the catalog distribution was properly subjected to the tax, since once the catalogs landed in Louisiana mailboxes they left the stream of interstate commerce and became part of the property mass of the State. Furthermore, “[distribution of the catalogs certainly constitutes ‘use’ by Holmes under the statute and is subject to the tax.” Id., at 105. Turning to the federal question in the case, the Court of Appeal analyzed the use tax under the test we articulated in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274 (1977), and found that it did not Violate the Commerce Clause.
The Louisiana Supreme Court denied discretionary review. 506 So. 2d 1224 (1987). We noted probable jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2). 484 U. S. 923 (1987).
HH b-H
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, provides that Congress shall have the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Even where Congress has not acted affirmatively to protect interstate commerce, the Clause prevents States from discriminating against that commerce. The “distinction between the power of the State to shelter its people from menaces to their health or safety and from fraud, even when those dangers emanate from interstate commerce, and its lack of power to retard, burden or constrict the flow of such commerce for their economic advantage, is one deeply rooted in both our history and our law.” H. P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 533 (1949).
One frequent source of conflict of this kind occurs when a State seeks to tax the sale or use of goods within its borders. See, e. g., Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U. S. 100 (1975); Memphis Natural Gas Co. v. Stone, 335 U. S. 80 (1948). This recurring dilemma is exemplified in what has come to be the leading case in the area, Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, supra. In Complete Auto, Mississippi imposed a tax on appellant’s business of in-state transportation of motor vehicles manufactured outside the State. We found that the State’s tax did not violate the Commerce Clause, because appellant’s activity had a substantial nexus with Mississippi, and the tax was fairly apportioned, did not discriminate against interstate commerce, and .was fairly related to benefits provided by the State. Id., at 287.
This four-part formulation has since been used to evaluate the validity of state taxes vis-a-vis the Commerce Clause in a number of contexts. Two Terms ago, for instance, we upheld a Florida tax on aviation fuel purchased within the State, finding that all four of the Complete Auto criteria were satisfied. Wardair Canada Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 477 U. S. 1 (1986). The Complete Auto test has also been employed to test the constitutionality of business and occupation taxes, Department of Revenue of Washington v. Association of Washington Stevedoring Cos., 435 U. S. 734 (1978); mineral severance taxes, Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U. S. 609 (1981); and the taxation of income received by an out-of-state corporation from its in-state subsidiaries, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, 445 U. S. 425 (1980).
Complete Auto abandoned the abstract notion that interstate commerce “itself” cannot be taxed by the States. We recognized that, with certain restrictions, interstate commerce may be required to pay its fair share of state taxes. Accordingly, in the present case, it really makes little difference for Commerce Clause purposes whether Holmes’ catalogs “came to rest” in the mailboxes of its Louisiana customers or whether they were still considered in the stream of interstate commerce. This distinction may be of some importance for other purposes (in determining, for instance, whether a “taxable moment” has occurred, see 505 So. 2d, at 105), but for Commerce Clause analysis it is largely irrelevant.
Holmes argues that Louisiana’s assessment against its merchandise catalogs is, in essence, a tax on the mere presence of goods within the State. This contention was expressly rejected by the Louisiana Court of Appeal’s finding that the distribution of the catalogs constituted use under §§47:802 and 47:321. We accept this construction of state law, and thus see no merit in the argument that Louisiana has attempted to tax only the existence of goods within the State.
In the case before us, then, the application of Louisiana’s use tax to Holmes’ catalogs does not violate the Commerce Clause if the tax complies with the four prongs of Complete Auto. We have no doubt that the second and third elements of the test are satisfied. The Louisiana taxing scheme is fairly apportioned, for it provides a credit against its use tax for sales taxes that have been paid in other States. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §47:303(A) (West 1970) (“A credit against the use tax imposed by this Chapter shall be granted to taxpayers who have paid a similar tax upon the sale or use of the same tangible personal property in another state”); §47:302(A)(2) (instructing that “there shall be no duplication of the tax”); §47:321(A)(2) (West Supp. 1988) (same). Holmes paid no sales tax for the catalogs where they were designed or printed; if it had, it would have been eligible for a credit against the use tax exacted. Similarly, Louisiana imposed its use tax only on the 82% of the catalogs distributed in-state; it did not attempt to tax that portion of the catalogs that went to out-of-state customers.
The Louisiana tax structure likewise does not discriminate against interstate commerce. The use tax is designed to compensate the State for revenue lost when residents purchase out-of-state goods for use within the State. It is equal to the sales tax applicable to the same tangible personal property purchased in-state; in fact, both taxes are set forth in the same sections of the Louisiana statutes. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§47:302 and 47:321 (West 1970 and Supp. 1988).
Complete Auto requires that the tax be fairly related to benefits provided by the State, but that condition is also met here. Louisiana provides a number of services that facilitate Holmes’ sale of merchandise within the State: It provides fire and police protection for Holmes’ stores, runs mass transit and maintains public roads which benefit Holmes’ customers, and supplies a number of other civic services from which Holmes profits. To be sure, many others in the State benefit from the same services; but that does not alter the fact that the use tax paid by Holmes, on catalogs designed to increase sales, is related to the advantages provided by the State which aid Holmes’ business.
Finally, we believe that Holmes’ distribution of its catalogs reflects a substantial nexus with Louisiana. To begin with, Holmes’ contention that it lacked sufficient control over the catalogs’ distribution in Louisiana to be subject to the use tax verges on the nonsensical. Holmes ordered and paid for the catalogs and supplied the list of customers to whom the catalogs were sent; any catalogs that could not be delivered were returned to it. Holmes admits that it initiated the distribution to improve its sales and name recognition among Louisiana residents. Holmes also has a significant presence in Louisiana, with 13 stores and over $100 million in annual sales in the State. See App. 68-69, 98. The distribution of catalogs to approximately 400,000 Louisiana customers was directly aimed at expanding and enhancing its Louisiana business. There is “nexus” aplenty here.
Holmes and several amici argue that Holmes’ posture here closely resembles the predicament of the mail-order business we confronted in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U. S. 753 (1967). In National Bellas Hess, we held that the State of Illinois could not, consistently with the Commerce Clause, compel an out-of-state mail-order company to collect a use tax on purchases of goods by Illinois residents when the seller’s only connection with its Illinois customers was by mail or common carrier. Holmes apparently views its catalog distribution as analogous to the mail-order solicitation in National Bellas Hess. This argument ignores, however, Holmes’ significant economic presence in Louisiana, its many connections with the State, and the direct benefits it receives from Louisiana in conducting its business. We thus see little similarity between the mail-order shipments in National Bellas Hess and Holmes’ activities in this case.
We find Holmes’ activities much closer to those considered in National Geographic Society v. California Board of Equalization, 430 U. S. 551 (1977). National Geographic involved the operation of two California offices by a national magazine devoted solely to soliciting advertising for the magazine. California nonetheless applied its use tax, which required every retailer engaged in business in the State to collect a tax from its purchasers, on the magazine’s mail-order activities. We determined that the imposition of the tax did not violate the Commerce Clause, since the magazine’s “maintenance of the two offices in California and activities there adequately established] a relationship or ‘nexus’ between the [magazine] and the State” sufficient to support the tax. Id., at 556. This conclusion applies a fortiori here, since Holmes’ connection with Louisiana far exceeds that of the magazine with California in National Geographic.
Because Louisiana’s imposition of its use tax on Holmes does not violate the Commerce Clause, the judgment of the Louisiana Court of Appeal is
Affirmed.
Ҥ47:302. Imposition of tax
“A. There is hereby levied a tax upon the sale at retail, the use, the consumption, the distribution, and the storage for use or consumption in this state, of each item or article of tangible personal property, as defined herein, the levy of said tax to be as follows:
“(2) At the rate of two per centum (2%) of the cost price of each item or article of tangible personal property when the same is not sold but is used, consumed, distributed, or stored for use or consumption in this state; provided there shall be no duplication of the tax.”
Ҥ 47:321. Imposition of tax
“A. In addition to the tax levied by R. S. 47:302(A) and collected under the provisions of Chapter 2 of Subtitle II of Title 47 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, there is hereby levied an additional tax upon the sale at retail, the use, the consumption, the distribution, and the storage for use or consumption in this state, of each item or article of tangible personal property . . . the levy of said tax to be as follows:
“(2) At the rate of one percent of the cost price of each item or article of tangible personal property when the same is not sold but is used, consumed, distributed, or stored for use or consumption in this state, provided that there shall be no duplication of the tax.”
As originally filed in Louisiana Civil District Court, the State’s complaint included a claim for delinquent sales taxes on candy sold by Holmes. The State apparently reached an acceptable compromise with Holmes, and the Civil District Court granted a joint motion by the parties to dismiss without prejudice the candy sales tax issue. That issue is thus no longer a part of this case.
As then codified this section provided:
Ҥ 47:305. Exclusions and exemptions from the tax
“(5) It is not the intention of this Chapter to levy a tax upon articles of tangible personal property imported into this state, or produced or manufactured in this state, for export; nor is it the intention of this Chapter to levy a tax on bona fide interstate commerce. It is, however, the intention of this Chapter to levy a tax on the sale at retail, the use, the consumption, the distribution, and the storage to be used or consumed in this state, of tangible personal property after it has come to rest in this state and has become a part of the mass of property in this state.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
Endeavoring to root out corporate fraud, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 116 Stat. 745 (Sarbanes-Oxley), and the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank). Both Acts shield whistleblowers from retaliation, but they differ in important respects. Most notably, Sarbanes-Oxley applies to all "employees" who report misconduct to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission), any other federal agency, Congress, or an internal supervisor. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1). Dodd-Frank delineates a more circumscribed class; it defines "whistleblower" to mean a person who provides "information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission." 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(6). A whistleblower so defined is eligible for an award if original information he or she provides to the SEC leads to a successful enforcement action. § 78u-6(b) - (g). And, most relevant here, a whistleblower is protected from retaliation for, inter alia, "making disclosures that are required or protected under" Sarbanes-Oxley, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the criminal anti-retaliation proscription at 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e), or any other law subject to the SEC's jurisdiction. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii).
The question presented: Does the anti-retaliation provision of Dodd-Frank extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the SEC and therefore falls outside the Act's definition of "whistleblower"? Pet. for Cert. (I). We answer that question "No": To sue under Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision, a person must first "provid [e]... information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission." § 78u-6(a)(6).
I
A
"To safeguard investors in public companies and restore trust in the financial markets following the collapse of Enron Corporation," Congress enacted Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002. Lawson v. FMR LLC, 571 U.S. 429, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1158, 1161, 188 L.Ed.2d 158 (2014). Most pertinent here, Sarbanes-Oxley created new protections for employees at risk of retaliation for reporting corporate misconduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. Section 1514A prohibits certain companies from discharging or otherwise "discriminat[ing] against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because" the employee "provid[es] information... or otherwise assist[s] in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation" of certain criminal fraud statutes, any SEC rule or regulation, or "any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders." § 1514A(a)(1). An employee qualifies for protection when he or she provides information or assistance either to a federal regulatory or law enforcement agency, Congress, or any "person with supervisory authority over the employee." § 1514A(a)(1)(A)-(C).
To recover under § 1514A, an aggrieved employee must exhaust administrative remedies by "filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor." § 1514A(b)(1)(A) ; see Lawson, 571 U.S., at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1163-1164. Congress prescribed a 180-day limitation period for filing such a complaint. § 1514A(b)(2)(D). If the agency "does not issue a final decision within 180 days of the filing of [a] complaint, and the [agency's] delay is not due to bad faith on the claimant's part, the claimant may proceed to federal district court for de novo review." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1163 (citing § 1514A(b) ). An employee who prevails in a proceeding under § 1514A is "entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole," including reinstatement, backpay with interest, and any "special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination," among such damages, litigation costs. § 1514A(c).
B
1
At issue in this case is the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provision enacted in 2010, eight years after the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley. Passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Dodd-Frank aimed to "promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system." 124 Stat. 1376.
Dodd-Frank responded to numerous perceived shortcomings in financial regulation. Among them was the SEC's need for additional "power, assistance and money at its disposal" to regulate securities markets. S. Rep. No. 111-176, pp. 36, 37 (2010). To assist the Commission "in identifying securities law violations," the Act established "a new, robust whistleblower program designed to motivate people who know of securities law violations to tell the SEC." Id., at 38. And recognizing that "whistleblowers often face the difficult choice between telling the truth and... committing 'career suicide,' " Congress sought to protect whistleblowers from employment discrimination. Id., at 111, 112.
Dodd-Frank implemented these goals by adding a new provision to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6. Section 78u-6 begins by defining a "whistleblower" as "any individual who provides... information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission, in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the Commission." § 78u-6(a)(6) (emphasis added). That definition, the statute directs, "shall apply" "[i]n this section"-i.e., throughout § 78u-6. § 78u-6(a).
Section 78u-6 affords covered whistleblowers both incentives and protection. First, the section creates an award program for "whistleblowers who voluntarily provid[e] original information to the Commission that le[ads] to the successful enforcement of [a] covered judicial or administrative action." § 78u-6(b)(1). A qualifying whistleblower is entitled to a cash award of 10 to 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected in the enforcement action. See § 78u-6(b)(1)(A)-(B).
Second, § 78u-6(h) prohibits an employer from discharging, harassing, or otherwise discriminating against a "whistleblower" "because of any lawful act done by the whistleblower" in three situations: first, "in providing information to the Commission in accordance with [ § 78u-6 ]," § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(i) ; second, "in initiating, testifying in, or assisting in any investigation or... action of the Commission based upon" information provided to the SEC in accordance with § 78u-6, § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(ii) ; and third, "in making disclosures that are required or protected under" either Sarbanes-Oxley, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the criminal anti-retaliation prohibition at 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e), or "any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission," § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii). Clause (iii), by cross-referencing Sarbanes-Oxley and other laws, protects disclosures made to a variety of individuals and entities in addition to the SEC. For example, the clause shields an employee's reports of wrongdoing to an internal supervisor if the reports are independently safeguarded from retaliation under Sarbanes-Oxley. See supra, at 772 - 773.
The recovery procedures under the anti-retaliation provisions of Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley differ in critical respects. First, unlike Sarbanes-Oxley, which contains an administrative-exhaustion requirement and a 180-day administrative complaint-filing deadline, see 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1)(A), (2)(D), Dodd-Frank permits a whistleblower to sue a current or former employer directly in federal district court, with a default limitation period of six years, see § 78u-6(h)(1)(B)(i), (iii)(I)(aa). Second, Dodd-Frank instructs a court to award to a prevailing plaintiff double backpay with interest, see § 78u-6(h)(1)(C)(ii), while Sarbanes-Oxley limits recovery to actual backpay with interest, see 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(2)(B). Like Sarbanes-Oxley, however, Dodd-Frank authorizes reinstatement and compensation for litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Compare § 78u-6(h)(1)(C)(i), (iii), with 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c)(2)(A), (C).
2
Congress authorized the SEC "to issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of [ § 78u-6 ] consistent with the purposes of this section." § 78u-6(j). Pursuant to this authority, the SEC published a notice of proposed rulemaking to "Implemen[t] the Whistleblower Provisions" of Dodd-Frank. 75 Fed.Reg. 70488 (2010). Proposed Rule 21F-2(a) defined a "whistleblower," for purposes of both the award and anti-retaliation provisions of § 78u-6, as one or more individuals who "provide the Commission with information relating to a potential violation of the securities laws." Id., at 70519 (proposed 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-2(a) ). The proposed rule, the agency noted, "tracks the statutory definition of a 'whistleblower' " by requiring information reporting to the SEC itself. 75 Fed.Reg. 70489.
In promulgating the final Rule, however, the agency changed course. Rule 21F-2, in finished form, contains two discrete "whistleblower" definitions. See 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-2(a) - (b) (2017). For purposes of the award program, the Rule states that "[y]ou are a whistleblower if... you provide the Commission with information... relat[ing] to a possible violation of the Federal securities laws." § 240.21F-2(a)(1) (emphasis added). The information must be provided to the SEC through its website or by mailing or faxing a specified form to the SEC Office of the Whistleblower. See ibid. ; § 240.21F-9(a)(1)-(2).
"For purposes of the anti-retaliation protections," however, the Rule states that "[y]ou are a whistleblower if... [y]ou possess a reasonable belief that the information you are providing relates to a possible securities law violation" and "[y]ou provide that information in a manner described in" clauses (i) through (iii) of § 78u-6(h)(1)(A). 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-2(b)(1)(i)-(ii). "The anti-retaliation protections apply," the Rule emphasizes, "whether or not you satisfy the requirements, procedures and conditions to qualify for an award." § 240.21F-2(b)(1)(iii). An individual may therefore gain anti-retaliation protection as a "whistleblower" under Rule 21F-2 without providing information to the SEC, so long as he or she provides information in a manner shielded by one of the anti-retaliation provision's three clauses. For example, a report to a company supervisor would qualify if the report garners protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley anti-retaliation provision.
C
Petitioner Digital Realty Trust, Inc. (Digital Realty) is a real estate investment trust that owns, acquires, and develops data centers. See Brief for Petitioner 3. Digital Realty employed respondent Paul Somers as a Vice President from 2010 to 2014. See 119 F.Supp.3d 1088, 1092 (N.D.Cal.2015). Somers alleges that Digital Realty terminated him shortly after he reported to senior management suspected securities-law violations by the company. See ibid. Although nothing impeded him from alerting the SEC prior to his termination, he did not do so. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 45. Nor did he file an administrative complaint within 180 days of his termination, rendering him ineligible for relief under Sarbanes-Oxley. See ibid. ; 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(D).
Somers brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, inter alia, a claim of whistleblower retaliation under Dodd-Frank. Digital Realty moved to dismiss that claim, arguing that "Somers does not qualify as a 'whistleblower' under [ § 78u-6(h) ] because he did not report any alleged law violations to the SEC." 119 F.Supp.3d, at 1094. The District Court denied the motion. Rule 21F-2, the court observed, does not necessitate recourse to the SEC prior to gaining "whistleblower" status under Dodd-Frank. See id., at 1095-1096. Finding the statutory scheme ambiguous, the court accorded deference to the SEC's Rule under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). See 119 F.Supp.3d, at 1096-1106.
On interlocutory appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 850 F.3d 1045 (2017). The majority acknowledged that Dodd-Frank's definitional provision describes a "whistleblower" as an individual who provides information to the SEC itself. Id., at 1049. But applying that definition to the anti-retaliation provision, the majority reasoned, would narrow the third clause of § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)"to the point of absurdity": The statute would protect employees only if they "reported possible securities violations both internally and to the SEC." Ibid. Such dual reporting, the majority believed, was unlikely to occur. Ibid. Therefore, the majority concluded, the statute should be read to protect employees who make disclosures privileged by clause (iii) of § 78u-6(h)(1)(A), whether or not those employees also provide information to the SEC. Id., at 1050. In any event, the majority held, the SEC's resolution of any statutory ambiguity warranted deference. Ibid. Judge Owens dissented. In his view, the statutory definition of whistleblower was clear, left no room for interpretation, and plainly governed. Id., at 1051.
Two other Courts of Appeals have weighed in on the question before us. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that employees must provide information to the SEC to avail themselves of Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation safeguard. See Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620, 630 (2013). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, over a dissent by Judge Jacobs. See Berman v. Neo @Ogilvy LLC, 801 F.3d 145, 155 (2015). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 582 U.S. ---- (2017), and now reverse the Ninth Circuit's judgment.
II
"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition," even if it varies from a term's ordinary meaning.
Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130, 128 S.Ct. 1572, 170 L.Ed.2d 478 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). This principle resolves the question before us.
A
Our charge in this review proceeding is to determine the meaning of "whistleblower" in § 78u-6(h), Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision. The definition section of the statute supplies an unequivocal answer: A "whistleblower" is "any individual who provides... information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission." § 78u-6(a)(6) (emphasis added). Leaving no doubt as to the definition's reach, the statute instructs that the "definitio[n] shall apply" "[i]n this section," that is, throughout § 78u-6. § 78u-6(a)(6).
The whistleblower definition operates in conjunction with the three clauses of § 78u-6(h)(1)(A) to spell out the provision's scope. The definition first describes who is eligible for protection-namely, a whistleblower who provides pertinent information "to the Commission." § 78u-6(a)(6). The three clauses of § 78u-6(h)(1)(A) then describe what conduct, when engaged in by a whistleblower, is shielded from employment discrimination. See § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(i)-(iii). An individual who meets both measures may invoke Dodd-Frank's protections. But an individual who falls outside the protected category of "whistleblowers" is ineligible to seek redress under the statute, regardless of the conduct in which that individual engages.
Reinforcing our reading, another whistleblower-protection provision in Dodd-Frank imposes no requirement that information be conveyed to a government agency. Title 10 of the statute, which created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), prohibits discrimination against a "covered employee" who, among other things, "provide[s]... information to [his or her] employer, the Bureau, or any other State, local, or Federal, government authority or law enforcement agency relating to" a violation of a law subject to the CFPB's jurisdiction. 12 U.S.C. § 5567(a)(1). To qualify as a "covered employee," an individual need not provide information to the CFPB, or any other entity. See § 5567(b) ("covered employee" means "any individual performing tasks related to the offering or provision of a consumer financial product or service").
"[W]hen Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another[,]... this Court presumes that Congress intended a difference in meaning." Loughrin v. United States, 573 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2384, 2390, 189 L.Ed.2d 411 (2014) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Congress placed a government-reporting requirement in § 78u-6(h), but not elsewhere in the same statute. Courts are not at liberty to dispense with the condition-tell the SEC-Congress imposed.
B
Dodd-Frank's purpose and design corroborate our comprehension of § 78u-6(h)'s reporting requirement. The "core objective" of Dodd-Frank's robust whistleblower program, as Somers acknowledges, Tr. of Oral Arg. 45, is "to motivate people who know of securities law violations to tell the SEC, " S. Rep. No. 111-176, at 38 (emphasis added). By enlisting whistleblowers to "assist the Government [in] identify[ing] and prosecut[ing] persons who have violated securities laws," Congress undertook to improve SEC enforcement and facilitate the Commission's "recover[y][of] money for victims of financial fraud." Id., at 110. To that end, § 78u-6 provides substantial monetary rewards to whistleblowers who furnish actionable information to the SEC. See § 78u-6(b).
Financial inducements alone, Congress recognized, may be insufficient to encourage certain employees, fearful of employer retaliation, to come forward with evidence of wrongdoing. Congress therefore complemented the Dodd-Frank monetary incentives for SEC reporting by heightening protection against retaliation. While Sarbanes-Oxley contains an administrative-exhaustion requirement, a 180-day administrative complaint-filing deadline, and a remedial scheme limited to actual damages, Dodd-Frank provides for immediate access to federal court, a generous statute of limitations (at least six years), and the opportunity to recover double backpay. See supra, at 774 - 775. Dodd-Frank's award program and anti-retaliation provision thus work synchronously to motivate individuals with knowledge of illegal activity to "tell the SEC." S. Rep. No. 111-176, at 38.
When enacting Sarbanes-Oxley's whistleblower regime, in comparison, Congress had a more far-reaching objective: It sought to disturb the "corporate code of silence" that "discourage[d] employees from reporting fraudulent behavior not only to the proper authorities, such as the FBI and the SEC, but even internally." Lawson, 571 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1162 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Sarbanes-Oxley anti-retaliation provision covers employees who report fraud not only to the SEC, but also to any other federal agency, Congress, or an internal supervisor. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1).
C
In sum, Dodd-Frank's text and purpose leave no doubt that the term "whistleblower" in § 78u-6(h) carries the meaning set forth in the section's definitional provision. The disposition of this case is therefore evident: Somers did not provide information "to the Commission" before his termination, § 78u-6(a)(6), so he did not qualify as a "whistleblower" at the time of the alleged retaliation. He is therefore ineligible to seek relief under § 78u-6(h).
III
Somers and the Solicitor General tender a different view of Dodd-Frank's compass. The whistleblower definition, as they see it, applies only to the statute's award program, not to its anti-retaliation provision, and thus not, as the definition plainly states, throughout "this section," § 78u-6(a). See Brief for Respondent 30; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10-11. For purposes of the anti-retaliation provision alone, they urge us to construe the term "whistleblower" in its "ordinary sense," i.e., without any SEC-reporting requirement. Brief for Respondent 18.
Doing so, Somers and the Solicitor General contend, would align with our precedent, specifically Lawson v. Suwannee Fruit & S.S. Co., 336 U.S. 198, 69 S.Ct. 503, 93 L.Ed. 611 (1949), and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 189 L.Ed.2d 372 (2014). In those decisions, we declined to apply a statutory definition that ostensibly governed where doing so would have been "incompatible with... Congress' regulatory scheme," id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2443 (internal quotation marks omitted), or would have "destroy[ed] one of the [statute's] major purposes," Suwannee Fruit, 336 U.S., at 201, 69 S.Ct. 503.
This case is of a piece, Somers and the Solicitor General maintain. Applying the statutory definition here, they variously charge, would "create obvious incongruities," Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19 (internal quotation marks omitted), "produce anomalous results," id., at 22, "vitiate much of the [statute's] protection," id., at 20 (internal quotation marks omitted), and, as the Court of Appeals put it, narrow clause (iii) of § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)"to the point of absurdity," Brief for Respondent 35 (quoting 850 F.3d, at 1049 ). We next address these concerns and explain why they do not lead us to depart from the statutory text.
A
It would gut "much of the protection afforded by" the third clause of § 78u-6(h)(1)(a), Somers and the Solicitor General urge most strenuously, to apply the whistleblower definition to the anti-retaliation provision. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20 (internal quotation marks omitted); Brief for Respondent 28-29. As earlier noted, see supra, at 773 - 774, clause (iii) prohibits retaliation against a "whistleblower" for "making disclosures" to various persons and entities, including but not limited to the SEC, to the extent those disclosures are "required or protected under" various laws other than Dodd-Frank. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii). Applying the statutory definition of whistleblower, however, would limit clause (iii)'s protection to "only those individuals who report to the Commission." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22.
The plain-text reading of the statute undoubtedly shields fewer individuals from retaliation than the alternative proffered by Somers and the Solicitor General. But we do not agree that this consequence "vitiate[s]" clause (iii)'s protection, id., at 20 (internal quotation marks omitted), or ranks as "absur [d]," Brief for Respondent 35 (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, our reading leaves the third clause with "substantial meaning." Brief for Petitioner 32.
With the statutory definition incorporated, clause (iii) protects a whistleblower who reports misconduct both to the SEC and to another entity, but suffers retaliation because of the latter, non-SEC, disclosure. That would be so, for example, where the retaliating employer is unaware that the employee has alerted the SEC. In such a case, without clause (iii), retaliation for internal reporting would not be reached by Dodd-Frank, for clause (i) applies only where the employer retaliates against the employee "because of" the SEC reporting. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A). Moreover, even where the employer knows of the SEC reporting, the third clause may operate to dispel a proof problem: The employee can recover under the statute without having to demonstrate whether the retaliation was motivated by the internal report (thus yielding protection under clause (iii)) or by the SEC disclosure (thus gaining protection under clause (i)).
While the Solicitor General asserts that limiting the protections of clause (iii) to dual reporters would "shrink to insignificance the [clause's] ban on retaliation," Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22 (internal quotation marks omitted), he offers scant evidence to support that assertion. Tugging in the opposite direction, he reports that approximately 80 percent of the whistleblowers who received awards in 2016 "reported internally before reporting to the Commission." Id., at 23. And Digital Realty cites real-world examples of dual reporters seeking Dodd-Frank or Sarbanes-Oxley recovery for alleged retaliation. See Brief for Petitioner 33, and n. 4 (collecting cases). Overlooked by Somers and the Solicitor General, in dual-reporting cases, retaliation not prompted by SEC disclosures (and thus unaddressed by clause (i)) is likely commonplace: The SEC is required to protect the identity of whistleblowers, see § 78u-6(h)(2)(A), so employers will often be unaware that an employee has reported to the Commission. In any event, even if the number of individuals qualifying for protection under clause (iii) is relatively limited, "[i]t is our function to give the statute the effect its language suggests, however modest that may be." Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 270, 130 S.Ct. 2869, 177 L.Ed.2d 535 (2010).
B
Somers and the Solicitor General express concern that our reading would jettison protection for auditors, attorneys, and other employees subject to internal-reporting requirements. See Brief for Respondent 35; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 21. Sarbanes-Oxley, for example, requires auditors and attorneys to report certain information within the company before making disclosures externally. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j-1(b), 7245 ; 17 C.F.R. § 205.3. If the whistleblower definition applies, Somers and the Solicitor General fear, these professionals will be "le[ft]... vulnerable to discharge or other retaliatory action for complying with" their internal-reporting obligations. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our reading shields employees in these circumstances, however, as soon as they also provide relevant information to the Commission. True, such employees will remain ineligible for Dodd-Frank's protection until they tell the SEC, but this result is consistent with Congress' aim to encourage SEC disclosures. See S. Rep. No. 111-176, at 38 ; supra, at 773 - 774, 777 - 778. Somers worries that lawyers and auditors will face retaliation quickly, before they have a chance to report to the SEC. Brief for Respondent 35-36. But he offers nothing to show that Congress had this concern in mind when it enacted § 78u-6(h). Indeed, Congress may well have considered adequate the safeguards already afforded by Sarbanes-Oxley, protections specifically designed to shield lawyers, accountants, and similar professionals. See Lawson, 571 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1182.
C
Applying the whistleblower definition as written, Somers and the Solicitor General further protest, will create "an incredibly unusual statutory scheme": "[I]dentical misconduct"-i.e., retaliating against an employee for internal reporting-will "go punished or not based on the happenstance of a separate report" to the SEC, of which the wrongdoer may "not even be aware." Brief for Respondent 37-38. See also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24. The upshot, the Solicitor General warns, "would [be] substantially diminish[ed] Dodd-Fran[k] deterrent effect." Ibid.
Overlooked in this protest is Dodd-Frank's core objective: to prompt reporting to the SEC. Supra, at 773 - 744, 777 - 778. In view of that precise aim, it is understandable that the statute's retaliation protections, like its financial rewards, would be reserved for employees who have done what Dodd-Frank seeks to achieve, i.e., they have placed information about unlawful activity before the Commission to aid its enforcement efforts.
D
Pointing to another purported anomaly attending the reading we adopt today, the Solicitor General observes that neither the whistleblower definition nor § 78u-6(h)
contains any requirement of a "temporal or topical connection between the violation reported to the Commission and the internal disclosure for which the employee suffers retaliation." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 25. It is therefore possible, the Solicitor General posits, that "an employee who was fired for reporting accounting fraud to his supervisor in 2017 would have a cause of action under [ § 78u-6(h) ] if he had reported an insider-trading violation by his previous employer to the Commission in 2012." Ibid. For its part, Digital Realty agrees that this scenario could arise, but does not see it as a cause for concern: "Congress," it states, "could reasonably have made the policy judgment that individuals who report securities-law violations to the SEC should receive broad protection over time against retaliation for a variety of disclosures." Reply Brief 11.
We need not dwell on the situation hypothesized by the Solicitor General, for it veers far from the case before us. We note, however, that the interpretation offered by Somers and the Solicitor General-i.e., ignoring the statutory definition when construing the anti-retaliation provision-raises an even thornier question about the law's scope. Their view, which would not require an employee to provide information relating to a securities-law violation to the SEC, could afford Dodd-Frank protection to an employee who reports information bearing no relationship whatever to the securities laws. That prospect could be imagined based on the broad array of federal statutes and regulations cross-referenced by clause (iii) of the anti-retaliation provision. E.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e) (criminalizing retaliation for "providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission... of any Federal offense " (emphasis added)); see supra, at 774, and n. 2. For example, an employee fired for reporting a coworker's drug dealing to the Federal Bureau of Investigation might be protected. Brief for Petitioner 38. It would make scant sense, however, to rank an FBI drug-trafficking informant a whistleblower under Dodd-Frank, a law concerned only with encouraging the reporting of "securities law violations." S. Rep. No. 111-176, at 38 (emphasis added).
E
Finally, the interpretation we adopt, the Solicitor General adds, would undermine not just clause (iii) of § 78u-6(h)(1)(A), but clause (ii) as well. Clause (ii) prohibits retaliation against a whistleblower for "initiating, testifying in, or assisting in any investigation or... action of the Commission based upon" information conveyed to the SEC by a whistleblower in accordance with the statute. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(ii). If the whistleblower definition is applied to § 78u-6(h), the Solicitor General states, "an employer could fire an employee for giving... testimony [to the SEC] if the employee had not previously reported to the Commission online or through the specified written form"-i.e., the methods currently prescribed by Rule 21F-9 for a whistleblower to provide information to the Commission. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20-21 (citing 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-9(a)(1)-(2) ).
But the statute expressly delegates authority to the SEC to establish the "manner" in which information may be provided to the Commission by a whistleblower. See § 78u-6(a)(6). Nothing in today's opinion prevents the agency from enumerating additional means of SEC reporting-including through testimony protected by clause (ii).
IV
For the foregoing reasons, we find the statute's definition of "whistleblower" clear and conclusive. Because "Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue," Chevron, 467 U.S., at 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778 we do not accord deference to the contrary view advanced by the SEC in Rule 21F-2. See 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-2(b)(1) ; supra, at 775 - 776. The statute's unambiguous whistleblower definition, in short, precludes the Commission from more expansively interpreting that term. See Burgess, 553 U.S., at 130, 128 S.Ct. 1572.
* * *
The judgment of the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
In Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, decided last Monday on writ of certiorari to the Missouri Supreme Court, we considered the jurisdiction of a state court to enjoin conduct which in one aspect brought it within exclusive federal authority under the Taft-Hartley Act and in another constituted a violation of a state statute against restraint of trade. In this case we have to decide the question whether, under similar circumstances, a union has open to it, without resorting to the appellate procedures of the State and eventually of this Court, jurisdiction of a federal district court to enjoin the employer from pursuing his action in the state court.
Petitioner, an unincorporated association of clothing workers, was responsible for peaceful picketing of a number of respondent’s retail stores, presumably to compel its factory employees to join the union. Respondent, an Ohio corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of men’s clothing in interstate commerce, filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, alleging that the union’s conduct constituted a common-law conspiracy as well as a statutory and common-law restraint of trade. It prayed for temporary and permanent injunctions. The union brought proceedings to remove the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming that the employer’s petition alleged facts bringing the case within the original jurisdiction of the District Court as a civil action arising under the Taft-Hartley Act. 28 U. S. C. § 1337. That court remanded the action to the state court on the ground that if, as the union contended, the complaint in effect alleged a violation of § 8 (b)(1)(A) of the Taft-Hartley Act, under the decision in Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, only the National Labor Relations Board had jurisdiction of its subject matter. Rickman Brothers Co. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 114 F. Supp. 185, rehearing denied, 116 F. Supp. 800.
Upon remand, the union invoked the ground taken by the District Court in denying its jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss the action in the state court. This motion was denied without opinion. The union then filed this complaint in the same District Court seeking an injunction which would require the employer to withdraw the action commenced in the state court. Jurisdiction was based on 28 U. S. C. § 1337. This provision confers jurisdiction on federal courts over any civil action arising under any Act of Congress regulating interstate commerce. The union also relied on 28 U. S. C. § 1651, the all-writs section. The District Court held that under 28 U. S. C. § 2283, which prohibits federal injunctions against state court proceedings, it was without power to grant the requested relief, inasmuch as the action did not come within any of the exceptions to that general prohibition. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed, 211 F. 2d 449. The jurisdictional question is plainly important in this area of federal-state relations and we granted certiorari, 348 U. S. 813.
Subsequent to the affirmance by the Court of Appeals, the Ohio Court of Common Pleas ruled favorably on the employer’s motion for a temporary injunction. Rich- man Brothers Co. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 51 Ohio Op. 145, 116 N. E. 2d 60.
1. Under the decision in Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., we may assume that the conduct in controversy is subject to whatever relief the Taft-Hartley Act may afford, and therefore is outside state authority. The question is whether a federal court may, before complaint has been entertained by the Board and at the request of one of the private parties, enjoin the attempt to secure relief through state proceedings.
We need not re-examine the series of decisions, prior to the enactment of Title 28 of the United States Code in 1948, which appeared to recognize implied exceptions to the historic prohibition against federal interference with state judicial proceedings. See Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U. S. 118. By that enactment, Congress made clear beyond cavil that the prohibition is not to be whittled away by judicial improvisation. Former § 265 of the Judicial Code provided:
“The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State, except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy.” 36 Stat. 1162.
The 1948 enactment revised as well as codified. The old section was thus embodied in the new § 2283:
“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.”
In lieu of the bankruptcy exception of § 265, Congress substituted a generalized phrase covering all exceptions, such as that of the Interpleader Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2361, to be found in federal statutes. Two newly formulated exceptions to the general prohibition deal with problems of judicial administration which had earlier been the subject of the series of decisions dealt with in the Toucey case. If confirmation of the comprehensive scope thus revealed on the face of the enactment were necessary, it is to be found in the Reviser’s Notes, which state:
“An exception as to Acts of Congress relating to bankruptcy was omitted and the general exception substituted to cover all exceptions.”
In the face of this carefully considered enactment, we cannot accept the argument of petitioner and the Board, as amicus curiae, that § 2283 does not apply whenever the moving party in the District Court alleges that the state court is “wholly without jurisdiction over the subject matter, having invaded a field preempted by Congress.” No such exception had been established by judicial decision under former § 265. In any event, Congress has left no justification for its recognition now. This is not a statute conveying a broad general policy for appropriate ad hoc application. Legislative policy is here expressed in a clear-cut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions.
We are further admonished against taking the liberty of interpolation when Congress clearly left no room for it, by the inadmissibility of the assumption that ascertainment of pre-emption under the Taft-Hartley Act is self-determining or even easy. As we have noted in the Weber case, “the areas that have been pre-empted by federal authority and thereby withdrawn from state power are not susceptible of delimitation by fixed metes and bounds.” 348 U. S., at 480. What is within exclusive federal authority may first have to be determined by this Court to be so.
2. We turn, therefore, to the specific exemptions contained in § 2283. The first of these permits an injunction to issue “as expressly authorized by Act of Congress.” In the present case we are directed to no “express” authorization within even the most attenuated meaning of the term. Of course no prescribed formula is required; an authorization need not expressly refer to § 2283. But the only “express” authorization, in the freest use of the word, to be found in the Taft-Hartley Act does not help petitioner. Congress has provided an administrative agency to pass on claims that rights granted by the Act are denied or that restrictions imposed by the Act are disregarded. Only after the Board has found such claims to be well-founded and has formulated remedies for their vindication does the jurisdiction for review by the Court of Appeals come into being. However, injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order may be obtained by the Board from the appropriate District Court, pending final adjudication by the Board, “upon issuance of a complaint” by the Board or when there is “reasonable cause to believe” in the truth of a charge that a party “has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (A), (B), or (C) of section 8 (b).” Congress explicitly gave such jurisdiction to the district courts only on behalf of the Board on a petition by it or “the officer or regional attorney to whom the matter may be referred.” § 10 (j), (1), 61 Stat. 149, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (j), (1). To hold that the Taft-Hartley Act also authorizes a private litigant to secure interim relief would be to ignore the closely circumscribed jurisdiction given to the District Court and to generalize where Congress has chosen to specify. To find exclusive authority for relief vested in the Board and not in private parties accords with other aspects of the Act. See Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U. S. 261. Such was the authority recognized in Capital Service, Inc. v. Labor Board, 347 U. S. 501.
But the argument is made that to permit the state courts to proceed unchecked in their incursion upon a federally pre-empted domain dislocates the federal scheme as a whole. This argument is only a rephrasing of the suggestion that whenever Congress is found to have preempted a field by legislation § 2283 must yield. But its thrust is deeper in the particular circumstances of this case. If the employer’s use of the judicial process of the State does not amount to an unfair labor practice, and if the Board is without power to seek an injunction before a complaint is filed with it, the federal mechanism will not be invoked and federally protected rights may be denied until the injunction is lifted. The employer, who might have brought a charge of an unfair labor practice before the Board, has chosen to ignore his remedy under the Taft-Hartley Act. The temporary injunction which has been issued is not, under Ohio law, appealable, and the appellate procedures which will be available if a permanent injunction is issued are necessarily time-consuming. Thus, so the argument runs, unless the federal court can intervene, delay will not only undercut the legislative scheme, but opportunity for effective union activity may be diminished if not lost.
The assumption upon which the argument proceeds is that federal rights will not be adequately protected in the state courts, and the “gap” complained of is impatience with the appellate process if state courts go wrong. But during more than half of our history Congress, in establishing the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, in the main relied on the adequacy of the state judicial systems to enforce federal rights, subject to review by this Court. With limited exceptions, it was not until 1875 that the lower federal courts were given general jurisdiction over federal questions. During that entire period, the vindication of federal rights depended upon the procedure which petitioner attacks as so grossly inadequate that it could not have been contemplated by Congress. The prohibition of § 2283 is but continuing evidence of confidence in the state courts, reinforced by a desire to avoid direct'conflicts between state and federal courts.
We cannot assume that this confidence has been misplaced. Neither the course of this case, nor the history of state court actions since the decision in Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, demonstrates recalcitrance on the part of state courts to recognize the rather subtle line of demarcation between exclusive federal and allowable state jurisdiction over labor problems. In its effort to define what has been withdrawn from the States and what has been left them, the opinion in Garner, decided just last Term, was hedged with qualifications, even in a case which dealt only with state court enforcement of a state labor policy as such.
Misapplication of this Court’s opinions is not confined to the state courts, nor are delays in litigation peculiar to them. To permit the federal courts to interfere, as a matter of judicial notions of policy, may add to the number of courts which pass on a controversy before the rightful forum for its settlement is established. A district court’s assertion of equity power or its denial may in turn give rise to appellate review on this collateral issue. There may also be added an element of federal-state competition and conflict which may be trusted to be exploited and to complicate, not simplify, existing difficulties.
3. The exception to § 2283 which permits the District Court to issue injunctions “where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction” remains to be considered. In no lawyer-like sense can the present proceeding be thought to be in aid of the District Court’s jurisdiction. Under no circumstances has the District Court jurisdiction to enforce rights and duties which call for recognition by the Board. Such nonexistent jurisdiction therefore cannot be aided.
Insofar as protection is needed for the Board’s exercise of its jurisdiction, Congress has, as we have seen, specifically provided for resort, but only by the Board, to the District Court’s equity powers. Since the very presupposition of this proceeding is that jurisdiction of the subject matter of which the employer complained was in the Board and not in the state court, any aid that is needed to protect jurisdiction is the aid which the Board may need for the safeguarding of its authority. Such aid only the Board could seek, and only if, in a case pending before it, it has satisfied itself as to the adequacy of the complaint.
It is urged that an employer may deliberately prevent Board action by going into a state court. For one thing, it has not yet been determined that, if an employer resorts to a state court in relation to conduct that is obviously taken over by the Taft-Hartley Act and outside the bounds of state relief, it may not under appropriate circumstances give ground for a finding of an unfair labor practice. In any event, if resort to a state court may not be circumvented by the power of the Board to entertain such a complaint, we are bound to repeat that, insofar as a penumbral region must remain between state and federal authority touching industrial relations until finally clarified by definitive rulings here or further legislation by Congress, state litigation must, in view of § 2283, be allowed to run its course, including the ultimate reviewing power in this Court.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. A181. Petitioner and the Board, as amicus curiae, emphasize the statement in the Reviser’s Notes that “the revised section restores the basic law as generally understood and interpreted prior to the Toucy [sic] decision.” Even if taken to mean that, despite the revised wording, the section is to derive its content from decisions prior to 1948, these contain no precedent for the present proceeding. See note 2, infra. Moreover, in context it is clear that the quoted phrase refers only to the particular problem which was before the Court in the Toucey case.
The statement in Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 511, that “Congress thus preempted jurisdiction in favor of the Emergency Court to the exclusion of state courts. The rule expressed in § 265 which is designed to avoid collisions between state and federal authorities . . . thus does not come into play,” must be read in the context of the scheme of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (56 Stat. 23) and particularly the authority in that Act for resort by the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration to injunctive relief under the circumstances there presented. §205 (a), 56 Stat. 33. It is also to be noted that this observation was made prior to the revision of 1948.
A temporary injunction which merely serves to preserve the status quo pending the hearing on a request for a permanent injunction is not a final order appealable under §§ 2505.02, 2505.03 of Page’s Ohio Rev. Code (1954). May Co. v. Bailey Co., 81 Ohio St. 471, 91 N. E. 183; Tipling v. Randall Park Holding Co., 94 Ohio App. 505, 114 N. E. 2d 279.
With the exception of the short-lived “Midnight Judges” Act of February 13, 1801, 2 Stat. 89 (repealed on March 8, 1802, 2 Stat. 132), the so-called federal specialties, and specific ad hoc grants of jurisdiction, enforcement of federal rights was confined to the state courts prior to the Act of March 3, 1875,18 Stat. 470. See 13 Cornell L. Q. 499, 507-509.
We have been referred by petitioner to decisions in the lower federal courts under 28 TJ. S. C. § 1651 and its antecedents holding that the Court of Appeals may resort to writ of mandamus or prohibition “in aid of its jurisdiction” to prevent a district court from acting in a manner which would defeat the Court of Appeals’ power of review. These decisions might be more relevant had the injunction been sought from the Court of Appeals. Only that court has power to review decisions of the Board. In any event, it has never been authoritatively suggested that this example of injunctive aid to a potential jurisdiction, which finds roots in traditional concepts of the relationship between inferior and superior courts of the same judicial system, has any relevance where the offending action sought to be enjoined is insulated by two intervening and essentially unrelated systems, one of an administrative rather than judicial nature, the other the manifestation of a distinct sovereign authority.
In W. T. Carter and Brother, 90 N. L. R. B. 2020, the Board has held that an employer's action in procuring a state court injunction prohibiting federally protected employee activities constitutes a violation of §8 (a)(1) of the Act which designates as an unfair labor practice an employer’s restraint of employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under § 7. The Board now argues that this case is limited to situations in which the employer’s resort to the state court is part of a bad faith scheme to defeat union organization and the underlying union conduct which has been enjoined is protected under the Taft-Hartley Act.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires the Court to address the intersection of principles that define when arrests are lawful and principles that prohibit the government from retaliating against a person for having exercised the right to free speech. An arrest deprives a person of essential liberties, but if there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a criminal offense there is often no recourse for the deprivation. See, e.g., Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004). At the same time, the First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating against individuals for engaging in protected speech. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 592, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998).
The petitioner in this case alleges that high-level city policymakers adopted a plan to retaliate against him for protected speech and then ordered his arrest when he attempted to make remarks during the public-comment portion of a city council meeting. The petitioner now concedes there was probable cause for the arrest. The question is whether the presence of probable cause bars petitioner's retaliatory arrest claim under these circumstances.
I
The city of Riviera Beach is on the Atlantic coast of Florida, about 75 miles north of Miami. The petitioner here is Fane Lozman. In 2006 Lozman towed his floating home into a slip in the City-owned marina, where he became a resident. Thus began his contentious relationship with the City's elected officials.
Soon after his arrival Lozman became an outspoken critic of the City's plan to use its eminent domain power to seize homes along the waterfront for private development. Lozman often spoke during the public-comment period at city council meetings and criticized councilmembers, the mayor, and other public employees. He also filed a lawsuit alleging that the Council's approval of an agreement with developers violated Florida's open-meetings laws.
In June 2006 the Council held a closed-door session, in part to discuss the open-meetings lawsuit that Lozman recently had filed. According to the transcript of the meeting, Councilmember Elizabeth Wade suggested that the City use its resources to "intimidate" Lozman and others who had filed lawsuits against the City. App. 176. Later in the meeting a different councilmember asked whether there was "a consensus of what Ms. Wade is saying," and others responded in the affirmative. Id ., at 181-182. Lozman alleges that these remarks formed an official plan to intimidate him. The City, on the other hand, maintains that the only consensus reached during the meeting was to invest the money and resources necessary to prevail in the litigation against it.
In all events, Lozman became embroiled in a number of disputes with city officials and employees over the ensuing years, many of which Lozman says were part of the City's plan of retaliation. The dispute that led to this litigation took place in 2006. In November of that year, five months after the closed-door meeting where the "intimidate" comment was made, the City Council held a public meeting. The agenda included a public-comment session in which citizens could address the Council for a few minutes. As he had done on earlier occasions and would do more than 200 times over the coming years, see Tr. in No. 9:08-cv-80134 (SD Fla.), Doc. 785, p. 61, Lozman stepped up to the podium to give remarks. He began to discuss the recent arrest of a former county official. Councilmember Wade interrupted Lozman, directing him to stop making those remarks. Lozman continued speaking, this time about the arrest of a former official from the city of West Palm Beach. Wade then called for the assistance of the police officer in attendance. The officer approached Lozman and asked him to leave the podium. Lozman refused. So Wade told the officer to "carry him out." The officer handcuffed Lozman and ushered him out of the meeting. The incident was recorded on video. See Record, Def. Exh. 505, Doc. 687, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/video/mp4files/Lozman_v_RivieraBeach.mp4. According to the City, Lozman was arrested because he violated the City Council's rules of procedure by discussing issues unrelated to the City and then refused to leave the podium. According to Lozman, the arrest was to retaliate for his open-meetings lawsuit against the City and his prior public criticisms of city officials.
Under arrest, Lozman was escorted to police headquarters. He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence and then released. Later, the State's attorney determined there was probable cause to arrest Lozman for those offenses but decided to dismiss the charges.
Lozman filed this lawsuit under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint described a number of alleged incidents that, under Lozman's theory, showed the City's purpose to harass him in different ways. These ranged from a city employee telling Lozman that his dog needed a muzzle to the City's initiation of an admiralty lawsuit against Lozman's floating home-the latter resulting in an earlier decision by this Court. See Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115, 133 S.Ct. 735, 184 L.Ed.2d 604 (2013). The evidence and arguments presented by both parties with respect to all the matters alleged in Lozman's suit consumed 19 days of trial before a jury. The jury returned a verdict for the City on all of the claims.
Before this Court, Lozman seeks a reversal only as to the City's alleged retaliatory arrest at the November 2006 city council meeting. The District Court instructed the jury that, for Lozman to prevail on this claim, he had to prove that the arresting officer was himself motivated by impermissible animus against Lozman's protected speech and that the officer lacked probable cause to make the arrest. The District Court determined that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support probable cause for the offenses charged at the time of the arrest (disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence). But the District Court concluded that there may have been probable cause to arrest Lozman for violating a Florida statute that prohibits interruptions or disturbances in schools, churches, or other public assemblies. Fla. Stat. § 871.01 (2017). (The City had brought this statute to the District Court's attention during the course of the litigation.) The District Court allowed the jury to decide whether there was probable cause to arrest for the public-disturbance offense.
Judgment having been entered for the City after the jury's verdict, Lozman appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 681 Fed.Appx. 746 (2017). As relevant here, the Court of Appeals assumed that the District Court erred when it instructed the jury that the officer, rather than the City, must have harbored the retaliatory animus. But the Court of Appeals held that any error was harmless because the jury necessarily determined that the arrest was supported by probable cause when it found for the City on some of Lozman's other claims-specifically, his claims that the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment and state law. Id., at 751-752. And, under precedents which the Court of Appeals deemed controlling, the existence of probable cause defeated a First Amendment claim for retaliatory arrest. See id., at 752 (citing Dahl v. Holley, 312 F.3d 1228, 1236 (C.A.11 2002) ).
This Court granted certiorari, 538 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 447, 199 L.Ed.2d 328 (2017), on the issue whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment claim for retaliatory arrest under § 1983. The Court considered this issue once before, see Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 663, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012), but resolved the case on different grounds.
II
The issue before the Court is a narrow one. In this Court Lozman does not challenge the constitutionality of Florida's statute criminalizing disturbances at public assemblies. He does not argue that the statute is overly broad, e.g., Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949) ; Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N. Y., Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 122 S.Ct. 2080, 153 L.Ed.2d 205 (2002) ; or that it impermissibly targets speech based on its content or viewpoint, e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989) ; Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971) ; or that it was enforced in a way that curtailed Lozman's right to peaceful assembly, e.g., Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 86 S.Ct. 719, 15 L.Ed.2d 637 (1966). Lozman, furthermore, does not challenge the validity of the City Council's asserted limitations on the subjects speakers may discuss during the public-comment portion of city council meetings (although he continues to dispute whether those limitations in fact existed).
Instead Lozman challenges only the lawfulness of his arrest, and even that challenge is a limited one. There is no contention that the City ordered Lozman's arrest to discriminate against him based on protected classifications, or that the City denied Lozman his equal protection rights by placing him in a "class of one." See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000) (per curiam ). Lozman, moreover, now concedes that there was probable cause for the arrest. Although Lozman does not indicate what facts he believes support this concession, it appears that the existence of probable cause must be based on the assumption that Lozman failed to depart the podium after receiving a lawful order to leave.
Lozman's claim is that, notwithstanding the presence of probable cause, his arrest at the city council meeting violated the First Amendment because the arrest was ordered in retaliation for his earlier, protected speech: his open-meetings lawsuit and his prior public criticisms of city officials. The question this Court is asked to consider is whether the existence of probable cause bars that First Amendment retaliation claim.
III
It is well established that in a § 1983 case a city or other local governmental entity cannot be subject to liability at all unless the harm was caused in the implementation of "official municipal policy." Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) ; see Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29, 36, 131 S.Ct. 447, 178 L.Ed.2d 460 (2010). Lozman's § 1983 damages claim is against only the City itself, based on the acts of its officers and employees-here, the members of the City Council. Lozman says that the City, through its city councilmembers, formed an official policy to retaliate against him and ordered his arrest. The Court assumes in the discussion to follow that the arrest was taken pursuant to an official city policy, but whether there was such a policy and what its content may have been are issues not decided here.
This brings the discussion to the issue the parties deem central to the case: whether the conceded existence of probable cause for the arrest bars recovery regardless of any intent or purpose to retaliate for past speech. Two major precedents could bear on this point, and the parties disagree on which should be applicable here. The first is this Court's decision in Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). See also Board of Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 116 S.Ct. 2342, 135 L.Ed.2d 843 (1996). Lozman urges that the rule of Mt. Healthy should control and that under it he is entitled to recover. The second is this Court's decision in Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006), which the City cites for the proposition that once there is probable cause there can be no further claim that the arrest was retaliation for protected speech.
Mt. Healthy arose in a civil, not criminal, context. A city board of education decided not to rehire an untenured school teacher after a series of incidents indicating unprofessional demeanor. 429 U.S., at 281-283, 97 S.Ct. 568. One of the incidents was a telephone call the teacher made to a local radio station to report on a new school policy. Id., at 282, 97 S.Ct. 568. Because the board of education did not suggest that the teacher violated any established policy in making the call, this Court accepted a finding by the District Court that the call was protected speech. Id., at 284, 97 S.Ct. 568. The Court went on to hold, however, that since the other incidents, standing alone, would have justified the dismissal, relief could not be granted if the board could show that the discharge would have been ordered even without reference to the protected speech. Id., at 285-287, 97 S.Ct. 568. In terms of precepts in the law of torts, the Court held that even if retaliation might have been a substantial motive for the board's action, still there was no liability unless the alleged constitutional violation was a but-for cause of the employment termination. Ibid. ; see also Umbehr, supra, at 675, 116 S.Ct. 2342.
The City resists the applicability of the Mt. Healthy test as the sole determinant here. It contends that, where there was probable cause for the arrest, the applicable precedent is Hartman -a case that was in the criminal sphere and that turned on the existence of probable cause.
The background in Hartman was that a company and its chief executive, William Moore, had engaged in an extensive lobbying and governmental relations campaign opposing a particular postal service policy. 547 U.S., at 252-253, 126 S.Ct. 1695. Moore and the company were later prosecuted for violating federal statutes in the course of that lobbying. Id., at 253-254, 126 S.Ct. 1695. After being acquitted, Moore filed suit against five postal inspectors, alleging that they had violated his First Amendment rights when they instigated his prosecution in retaliation for his criticisms of the Postal Service. Id., at 254, 126 S.Ct. 1695. This Court held that a plaintiff alleging a retaliatory prosecution must show the absence of probable cause for the underlying criminal charge. Id., at 265-266, 126 S.Ct. 1695. If there was probable cause, the case ends. If the plaintiff proves the absence of probable cause, then the Mt. Healthy test governs: The plaintiff must show that the retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor behind the prosecution, and, if that showing is made, the defendant can prevail only by showing that the prosecution would have been initiated without respect to retaliation. See 547 U.S., at 265-266, 126 S.Ct. 1695.
The Court in Hartman deemed it necessary to inquire as to the existence of probable cause because proving the link between the defendant's retaliatory animus and the plaintiff's injury in retaliatory prosecution cases "is usually more complex than it is in other retaliation cases." Id., at 261, 126 S.Ct. 1695. An action for retaliatory prosecution "will not be brought against the prosecutor, who is absolutely immune from liability for the decision to prosecute." Id., at 261-262, 126 S.Ct. 1695. Instead, the plaintiff must sue some other government official and prove that the official "induced the prosecutor to bring charges that would not have been initiated without his urging." Id., at 262, 126 S.Ct. 1695. Noting that inquiries with respect to probable cause are commonplace in criminal cases, the Court determined that requiring plaintiffs in retaliatory prosecution cases to prove the lack of probable cause would help "bridge the gap between the nonprosecuting government agent's motive and the prosecutor's action." Id., at 263, 126 S.Ct. 1695.
The City's argument here is that, just as probable cause is a bar in retaliatory prosecution cases, so too should it be a bar in this case, involving a retaliatory arrest. There is undoubted force in the City's position. Reichle, 566 U.S., at 667-668, 132 S.Ct. 2088. There are on average about 29,000 arrests per day in this country. Dept. of Justice-FBI, Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States, 2016 (Fall 2017). In deciding whether to arrest, police officers often make split-second judgments. The content of the suspect's speech might be a consideration in circumstances where the officer must decide whether the suspect is ready to cooperate, or, on the other hand, whether he may present a continuing threat to interests that the law must protect. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 577, 587, 199 L.Ed.2d 453 (2018) ("suspect's untruthful and evasive answers to police questioning could support probable cause" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
For these reasons retaliatory arrest claims, much like retaliatory prosecution claims, can "present a tenuous causal connection between the defendant's alleged animus and the plaintiff's injury." Reichle, 566 U.S., at 668, 132 S.Ct. 2088. That means it can be difficult to discern whether an arrest was caused by the officer's legitimate or illegitimate consideration of speech. Ibid. And the complexity of proving (or disproving) causation in these cases creates a risk that the courts will be flooded with dubious retaliatory arrest suits. See Brief for District of Columbia et al. as Amici Curiae 5-11.
At the same time, there are substantial arguments that Hartman 's framework is inapt in retaliatory arrest cases, and that Mt. Healthy should apply without a threshold inquiry into probable cause. For one thing, the causation problem in retaliatory arrest cases is not the same as the problem identified in Hartman . Hartman relied in part on the fact that, in retaliatory prosecution cases, the causal connection between the defendant's animus and the prosecutor's decision to prosecute is weakened by the "presumption of regularity accorded to prosecutorial decisionmaking." 547 U.S., at 263, 126 S.Ct. 1695. That presumption does not apply in this context. See Reichle, supra, at 669, 132 S.Ct. 2088. In addition, there is a risk that some police officers may exploit the arrest power as a means of suppressing speech. See Brief for Institute for Free Speech as Amicus Curiae .
IV
The parties' arguments raise difficult questions about the scope of First Amendment protections when speech is made in connection with, or contemporaneously to, criminal activity. But whether in a retaliatory arrest case the Hartman approach should apply, thus barring a suit where probable cause exists, or, on the other hand, the inquiry should be governed only by Mt. Healthy is a determination that must await a different case. For Lozman's claim is far afield from the typical retaliatory arrest claim, and the difficulties that might arise if Mt. Healthy is applied to the mine run of arrests made by police officers are not present here.
Here Lozman does not sue the officer who made the arrest. Indeed, Lozman likely could not have maintained a retaliation claim against the arresting officer in these circumstances, because the officer appears to have acted in good faith, and there is no showing that the officer had any knowledge of Lozman's prior speech or any motive to arrest him for his earlier expressive activities.
Instead Lozman alleges more governmental action than simply an arrest. His claim is that the City itself retaliated against him pursuant to an "official municipal policy" of intimidation. Monell, 436 U.S., at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018. In particular, he alleges that the City, through its legislators, formed a premeditated plan to intimidate him in retaliation for his criticisms of city officials and his open-meetings lawsuit. And he asserts that the City itself, through the same high officers, executed that plan by ordering his arrest at the November 2006 city council meeting.
The fact that Lozman must prove the existence and enforcement of an official policy motivated by retaliation separates Lozman's claim from the typical retaliatory arrest claim. An official retaliatory policy is a particularly troubling and potent form of retaliation, for a policy can be long term and pervasive, unlike an ad hoc, on-the-spot decision by an individual officer. An official policy also can be difficult to dislodge. A citizen who suffers retaliation by an individual officer can seek to have the officer disciplined or removed from service, but there may be little practical recourse when the government itself orchestrates the retaliation. For these reasons, when retaliation against protected speech is elevated to the level of official policy, there is a compelling need for adequate avenues of redress.
In addition, Lozman's allegations, if proved, alleviate the problems that the City says will result from applying Mt. Healthy in retaliatory arrest cases. The causation problem in arrest cases is not of the same difficulty where, as is alleged here, the official policy is retaliation for prior, protected speech bearing little relation to the criminal offense for which the arrest is made. In determining whether there was probable cause to arrest Lozman for disrupting a public assembly, it is difficult to see why a city official could have legitimately considered that Lozman had, months earlier, criticized city officials or filed a lawsuit against the City. So in a case like this one it is unlikely that the connection between the alleged animus and injury will be "weakened ... by [an official's] legitimate consideration of speech." Reichle, 566 U.S., at 668, 132 S.Ct. 2088. This unique class of retaliatory arrest claims, moreover, will require objective evidence of a policy motivated by retaliation to survive summary judgment. Lozman, for instance, cites a transcript of a closed-door city council meeting and a video recording of his arrest. There is thus little risk of a flood of retaliatory arrest suits against high-level policymakers.
As a final matter, it must be underscored that this Court has recognized the "right to petition as one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights." BE & K Constr. Co. v.
NLRB, 536 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 2390, 153 L.Ed.2d 499 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Lozman alleges the City deprived him of this liberty by retaliating against him for his lawsuit against the City and his criticisms of public officials. Thus, Lozman's speech is high in the hierarchy of First Amendment values. See Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983).
For these reasons, Lozman need not prove the absence of probable cause to maintain a claim of retaliatory arrest against the City. On facts like these, Mt. Healthy provides the correct standard for assessing a retaliatory arrest claim. The Court need not, and does not, address the elements required to prove a retaliatory arrest claim in other contexts.
This is not to say, of course, that Lozman is ultimately entitled to relief or even a new trial. On remand, the Court of Appeals, applying Mt. Healthy and other relevant precedents, may consider any arguments in support of the District Court's judgment that have been preserved by the City. Among other matters, the Court of Appeals may wish to consider (1) whether any reasonable juror could find that the City actually formed a retaliatory policy to intimidate Lozman during its June 2006 closed-door session; (2) whether any reasonable juror could find that the November 2006 arrest constituted an official act by the City; and (3) whether, under Mt. Healthy, the City has proved that it would have arrested Lozman regardless of any retaliatory animus-for example, if Lozman's conduct during prior city council meetings had also violated valid rules as to proper subjects of discussion, thus explaining his arrest here.
For these reasons, 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.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Nancy Beth Cruzan was rendered incompetent as a result of severe injuries sustained during an automobile accident. Copetitioners Lester and Joyce Cruzan, Nancy’s parents and coguardians, sought a court order directing the withdrawal of their daughter’s artificial feeding and hydration equipment after it became apparent that she had virtually no chance of recovering her cognitive faculties. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that because there was no clear and convincing evidence of Nancy’s desire to have life-sustaining treatment withdrawn under such circumstances, her parents lacked authority to effectuate such a request. We granted certiorari, 492 U. S. 917 (1989), and now affirm.
On the night of January 11, 1983, Nancy Cruzan lost control of her car as she traveled down Elm Road in Jasper County, Missouri. The vehicle overturned, and Cruzan was discovered lying face down in a ditch without detectable respiratory or cardiac function. Paramedics were able to restore her breathing and heartbeat at the accident site, and she was transported to a hospital in an unconscious state. An attending neurosurgeon diagnosed her as having sustained probable cerebral contusions compounded by significant anoxia (lack of oxygen). The Missouri trial court in this case found that permanent brain damage generally results after 6 minutes in an anoxic state; it was estimated that Cru-zan was deprived of oxygen from 12 to 14 minutes. She remained in a coma for approximately three weeks and then progressed to an unconscious state in which she was able to orally ingest some nutrition. In order to ease feeding and' further the recovery, surgeons implanted a gastrostomy feeding and hydration tube in Cruzan with the consent of her then husband. Subsequent rehabilitative efforts proved unavailing. She now lies in a Missouri state hospital in what is commonly referred to as a persistent vegetative state: generally, a condition in which a person exhibits motor reflexes but evinces no indications of significant cognitive function. The State of Missouri is bearing the cost of her care.
After it had become apparent that Nancy Cruzan had virtually no chance of regaining her mental faculties, her parents asked hospital employees to terminate the artificial nutrition and hydration procedures. All agree that such a removal would cause her death. The employees refused to honor the request without court approval. The parents then sought and received authorization from the state trial court for termination. The court found that a person in Nancy’s condition had a fundamental right under the State and Federal Constitutions to refuse or direct the withdrawal of “death prolonging procedures.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A99. The court also found that Nancy’s “expressed thoughts at age twenty-five in somewhat serious conversation with a housemate friend that if sick or injured she would not wish to continue her life unless she could live at least halfway normally suggests that given her present condition she would not wish to continue on with her nutrition and hydration.” Id., at A97-A98.
The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed by a divided vote. The court recognized a right to refuse treatment embodied in the common-law doctrine of informed consent, but expressed skepticism about the application of that doctrine in the circumstances of this case. Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S. W. 2d 408, 416-417 (1988) (en banc). The court also declined to read a broad right of privacy into the State Constitution which would “support the right of a person to refuse medical treatment in every circumstance,” and expressed doubt as to whether such a right existed under the United States Constitution. Id., at 417-418. It then decided that the Missouri Living Will statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. §459.010 et seq. (1986), embodied a state policy strongly favoring the preservation of life. 760 S. W. 2d, at 419-420. The court found that Cruzan’s statements to her roommate regarding her desire to live or die under certain conditions were “unreliable for the purpose of determining her intent,” id., at 424, “and thus insufficient to support the co-guardians[’] claim to exercise substituted judgment on Nancy’s behalf.” Id., at 426. It rejected the argument that Cruzan’s parents were entitled to order the termination of her medical treatment, concluding that “no person can assume that choice for an incompetent in the absence of the formalities required under Missouri’s Living Will statutes or the clear and convincing, inherently reliable evidence absent here.” Id., at 425. The court also expressed its view that “[b]road policy questions bearing on life and death are more properly addressed by representative assemblies” than judicial bodies. Id., at 426.
We granted certiorari to consider the question whether Cruzan has a right under the United States Constitution which would require the hospital to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from her under these circumstances.
At common law, even the touching of one person by another without consent and without legal justification was a battery. See W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 9, pp. 39-42 (5th ed. 1984). Before the turn of the century, this Court observed that “[n]o right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.” Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891). This notion of bodily integrity has been embodied in the requirement that informed consent is generally required for medical treatment. Justice Cardozo, while on the Court of Appeals of New York, aptly described this doctrine: “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.” Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N. Y. 125, 129-130, 105 N. E. 92, 93 (1914). The informed consent doctrine has become firmly entrenched in American tort law. See Keeton, Dobbs, Keeton, & Owen, supra, §32, pp. 189-192; F. Rozovsky, Consent to Treatment, A Practical Guide 1-98 (2d ed. 1990).
The logical corollary of the doctrine of informed consent is that the patient generally possesses the right not to consent, that is, to refuse treatment. Until about 15 years ago and the seminal decision in In re Quinlan, 70 N. J. 10, 355 A. 2d 647, cert. denied sub nom. Garget v. New Jersey, 429 U. S. 922 (1976), the number of right-to-refuse-treatment decisions was relatively few. Most of the earlier cases involved patients who refused medical treatment forbidden by their religious beliefs, thus implicating First Amendment rights as well as common-law rights of self-determination. More recently, however, with the advance of medical technology capable of sustaining life well past the point where natural forces would have brought certain death in earlier times, cases involving the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment have burgeoned. See 760 S. W. 2d, at 412, n. 4 (collecting 54 reported decisions from 1976 through 1988).
In the Quinlan case, young Karen Quinlan suffered severe brain damage as the result of anoxia and entered a persistent vegetative state. Karen’s father sought judicial approval to disconnect his daughter’s respirator. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the relief, holding that Karen had a right of privacy grounded in the Federal Constitution to terminate treatment. In re Quinlan, 70 N. J., at 38-42, 355 A. 2d, at 662-664. Recognizing that this right was not absolute, however, the court balanced it against asserted state interests. Noting that the State’s interest “weakens and the individual’s right to privacy grows as the degree of bodily invasion increases and the prognosis dims,” the court concluded that the state interests had to give way in that case. Id., at 41, 355 A. 2d, at 664. The court also concluded that the “only practical way” to prevent the loss of Karen’s privacy right due to her incompetence was to allow her guardian and family to decide “whether she would exercise it in these circumstances.” Ibid.
After Quinlan, however, most courts have based a right to refuse treatment either solely on the common-law right to informed consent or on both the common-law right and a constitutional privacy right. See L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 15-11, p. 1365 (2d ed. 1988). In Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728, 370 N. E. 2d 417 (1977), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts relied on both the right of privacy and the right of informed consent to permit the withholding of chemotherapy from a profoundly retarded 67-year-old man suffering from leukemia. Id., at 737-738, 370 N. E. 2d, at 424. Reasoning that an incompetent person retains the same rights as a competent individual “because the value of human dignity extends to both,” the court adopted a “substituted judgment” standard whereby courts were to determine what an incompetent individual’s decision would have been under the circumstances. Id., at 745, 752-753, 757-758, 370 N. E. 2d, at 427, 431, 434. Distilling certain state interests from prior case law — the preservation of life, the protection of the interests of innocent third parties, the prevention of suicide, and the maintenance of the ethical integrity of the medical profession — the court recognized the first interest as paramount and noted it was greatest when an affliction was curable, “as opposed to the State interest where, as here, the issue is not whether, but when, for how long, and at what cost to the individual [a] life may be briefly extended.” Id., at 742, 370 N. E. 2d, at 426.
In In re Storar, 52 N. Y. 2d 363, 420 N. E. 2d 64, cert. denied, 454 U. S. 858 (1981), the New York Court of Appeals declined to base a right to refuse treatment on a constitutional privacy right. Instead, it found such a right “adequately supported” by the informed consent doctrine. Id., at 376-377, 420 N. E. 2d, at 70. In In re Eichner (decided with In re Storar, supra), an 83-year-old man who had suffered brain damage from anoxia entered a vegetative state and was thus incompetent to consent to the removal of his respirator. The court, however, found it unnecessary to reach the question whether his rights could be exercised by others since it found the evidence clear and convincing from statements made by the patient when competent that he “did not want to be maintained in a vegetative coma by use of a respirator.” Id., at 380, 420 N. E. 2d, at 72. In the companion Storar case, a 52-year-old man suffering from bladder cancer had been profoundly retarded during most of his life. Implicitly rejecting the approach taken in Saikewicz, supra, the court reasoned that due to such life-long incompetency, “it is unrealistic to attempt to determine whether he would want to continue potentially life prolonging treatment if he were competent.” 52 N. Y. 2d, at 380, 420 N. E. 2d, at 72. As the evidence showed that the patient’s required blood transfusions did not involve excessive pain and without them his mental and physical abilities would deteriorate, the court concluded that it should not “allow an incompetent patient to bleed to death because someone, even someone as close as a parent or sibling, feels that this is best for one with an incurable disease.” Id., at 382, 420 N. E. 2d, at 73.
Many of the later cases build on the principles established in Quinlan, Saikewicz, and Storar/Eichner. For instance, in In re Conroy, 98 N. J. 321, 486 A. 2d 1209 (1985), the same court that decided Quinlan considered whether a nasogastric feeding tube could be removed from an 84-year-old incompetent nursing-home resident suffering irreversible mental and physical ailments. While recognizing that a federal right of privacy might apply in the case, the court, contrary to its approach in Quinlan, decided to base its decision on the common-law right to self-determination and informed consent. 98 N. J., at 348, 486 A. 2d, at 1223. “On balance, the right to self-determination ordinarily outweighs any countervailing state interests, and competent persons generally are permitted to refuse medical treatment, even at the risk of death. Most of the cases that have held otherwise, unless they involved the interest in protecting innocent third parties, have concerned the patient’s competency to make a rational and considered choice.” Id., at 353-354, 486 A. 2d, at 1225.
Reasoning that the right of self-determination should not be lost merely because an individual is unable to sense a violation of it, the court held that incompetent individuals retain a right to refuse treatment. It also held that such a right could be exercised by a surrogate decisionmaker using a “subjective” standard when there was clear evidence that the incompetent person would have exercised it. Where such evidence was lacking, the court held that an individual’s right could still be invoked in certain circumstances under objective “best interest” standards. Id., at 361-368, 486 A. 2d, at 1229-1233. Thus, if some trustworthy evidence existed that the individual would have wanted to terminate treatment, but not enough to clearly establish a person’s wishes for purposes of the subjective standard, and the burden of a prolonged life from the experience of pain and suffering markedly outweighed its satisfactions, treatment could be terminated under a “limited-objective” standard. Where no trustworthy evidence existed, and a person’s suffering would make the administration of life-sustaining treatment inhumane, a “pure-objective” standard could be used to terminate treatment. If none of these conditions obtained, the court held it was best to err in favor of preserving life. Id., at 364-368, 486 A. 2d, at 1231-1233.
The court also rejected certain categorical distinctions that had been drawn in prior refusal-of-treatment cases as lacking substance for decision purposes: the distinction between actively hastening death by terminating treatment and passively allowing a person to die of a disease; between treating individuals as an initial matter versus withdrawing treatment afterwards; between ordinary versus extraordinary treatment; and between treatment by artificial feeding versus other forms of life-sustaining medical procedures. Id., at 369-374, 486 A. 2d, at 1233-1237. As to the last item, the court acknowledged the “emotional significance” of food, but noted that feeding by implanted tubes is a “medical procedure] with inherent risks and possible side effects, instituted by skilled health-care providers to compensate for impaired physical functioning” which analytically was equivalent to artificial breathing using a respirator. Id., at 373, 486 A. 2d, at 1236.
In contrast to Conroy, the Court of Appeals of New York recently refused to accept less than the clearly expressed wishes of a patient before permitting the exercise of her right to refuse treatment by a surrogate decisionmaker. In re Westchester County Medical Center on behalf of O’Connor, 72 N. Y. 2d 517, 531 N. E. 2d 607 (1988) (O’Connor). There, the court, over the objection of the patient’s family members, granted an order to insert a feeding tube into a 77-year-old woman rendered incompetent as a result of several strokes. While continuing to recognize a common-law right to refuse treatment, the court rejected the substituted judgment approach for asserting it “because it is inconsistent with our fundamental commitment to the notion that no person or court should substitute its judgment as to what would be an acceptable quality of life for another. Consequently, we adhere to the view that, despite its pitfalls and inevitable uncertainties, the inquiry must always be narrowed to the patient’s expressed intent, with every effort made to minimize the opportunity for error.” Id., at 530, 531 N. E. 2d, at 613 (citation omitted). The court held that the record lacked the requisite clear and convincing evidence of the patient’s expressed intent to withhold life-sustaining treatment. Id., at 531-534, 531 N. E. 2d, at 613-615.
Other courts have found state statutory law relevant to the resolution of these issues. In Conservatorship of Drabick, 200 Cal. App. 3d 185, 245 Cal. Rptr. 840, cert. denied, 488 U. S. 958 (1988), the California Court of Appeal authorized the removal of a nasogastric feeding tube from a 44-year-old man who was in a persistent vegetative state as a result of an auto accident. Noting that the right to refuse treatment was grounded in both the common law and a constitutional right of privacy, the court held that a state probate statute authorized the patient’s conservator to order the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment when such a decision was made in good faith based on medical advice and the conservatee’s best interests. While acknowledging that “to claim that [a patient’s] ‘right to choose’ survives incompetence is a legal fiction at best,” the court reasoned that the respect society accords to persons as individuals is not lost upon incompetence and is best preserved by allowing others “to make a decision that reflects [a patient’s] interests more closely than would a purely technological decision to do whatever is possible.” Id., at 208, 245 Cal. Rptr., at 854-855. See also In re Conservatorship of Torres, 357 N. W. 2d 332 (Minn. 1984) (Minnesota court had constitutional and statutory authority to authorize a conservator to order the removal of an incompetent individual’s respirator since in patient’s best interests).
In In re Estate of Longeway, 133 Ill. 2d 33, 549 N. E. 2d 292 (1989), the Supreme Court of Illinois considered whether a 76-year-old woman rendered incompetent from a series of strokes had a right to the discontinuance of artificial nutrition and hydration. Noting that the boundaries of a federal right of privacy were uncertain, the court found a right to refuse treatment in the doctrine of informed consent. Id., at 43-45, 549 N. E. 2d, at 296-297. The court further held that the State Probate Act impliedly authorized a guardian to exercise a ward’s right to refuse artificial sustenance in the event that the ward was terminally ill and irreversibly comatose. Id., at 45-47, 549 N. E. 2d, at 298. Declining to adopt a best interests standard for deciding when it would be appropriate to exercise a ward’s right because it “lets another make a determination of a patient’s quality of life,” the court opted instead for a substituted judgment standard. Id., at 49, 549 N. E. 2d, at 299. Finding the “expressed intent” standard utilized in O’Connor, supra, too rigid, the court noted that other clear and convincing evidence of the patient’s intent could be considered. 133 Ill. 2d, at 50-51, 549 N. E. 2d, at 300. The court also adopted the “consensus opinion [that] treats artificial nutrition and hydration as medical treatment.” Id., at 42, 549 N. E. 2d, at 296. Cf. McConnell v. Beverly Enterprises-Connecticut, Inc., 209 Conn. 692, 705, 553 A. 2d 596, 603 (1989) (right to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration found in the Connecticut Removal of Life Support Systems Act, which “provides] functional guidelines for the exercise of the common law and constitutional rights of self-determination”; attending physician authorized to remove treatment after finding that patient is in a terminal condition, obtaining consent of family, and considering expressed wishes of patient).
As these cases demonstrate, the common-law doctrine of informed consent is viewed as generally encompassing the right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment. Beyond that, these cases demonstrate both similarity and diversity in their approaches to decision of what all agree is a perplexing question with unusually strong moral and ethical overtones. State courts have available to them for decision a number of sources — state constitutions, statutes, and common law — which are not available to us. In this Court, the question is simply and starkly whether the United States Constitution prohibits Missouri from choosing the rule of decision which it did. This is the first case in which we have been squarely presented with the issue whether the United States Constitution grants what is in common parlance referred to as a “right to die.” We follow the judicious counsel of our decision in Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U. S. 196, 202 (1897), where we said that in deciding “a question of such magnitude and importance... it is the [better] part of wisdom not to attempt, by any general statement, to cover every possible phase of the subject.”
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. ” The principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 24-30 (1905), for instance, the Court balanced an individual’s liberty interest in declining an unwanted smallpox vaccine against the State’s interest in preventing disease. Decisions prior to the incorporation of the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment analyzed searches and seizures involving the body under the Due Process Clause and were thought to implicate substantial liberty interests. See, e. g., Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U. S. 432, 439 (1957) (“As against the right of an individual that his person be held inviolable... must be set the interests of society...”).
Just this Term, in the course of holding that a State’s procedures for administering antipsychotic medication to prisoners were sufficient to satisfy due process concerns, we recognized that prisoners possess “a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210, 221-222 (1990); see also id,., at 229 (“The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty”). Still other cases support the recognition of a general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480, 494 (1980) (transfer to mental hospital coupled with mandatory behavior modification treatment implicated liberty interests); Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 600 (1979) (“[A] child, in common with adults, has a substantial liberty interest in not being confined unnecessarily for medical treatment”).
But determining that a person has a “liberty interest” under the Due Process Clause does not end the inquiry; “whether respondent’s constitutional rights have been violated must be determined by balancing his liberty interests against the relevant state interests.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307, 321 (1982). See also Mills v. Rogers, 457 U. S. 291, 299 (1982).
Petitioners insist that under the general holdings of our cases, the forced administration of life-sustaining medical treatment, and even of artificially delivered food and water essential to life, would implicate a competent person’s liberty interest. Although we think the logic of the cases discussed above would embrace such a liberty interest, the dramatic consequences involved in refusal of such treatment would inform the inquiry as. to whether the deprivation of that interest is constitutionally permissible. But for purposes of this case, we assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition.
Petitioners go on to assert that an incompetent person should possess the same right in this respect as is possessed by a competent person. They rely primarily on our decisions in Parham v. J. R., supra, and Youngberg v. Romeo, supra. In Parham, we held that a mentally disturbed minor child had a liberty interest in “not being confined unnecessarily for medical treatment,” 442 U. S., at 600, but we certainly did not intimate that such a minor child, after commitment, would have a liberty interest in refusing treatment. In Youngberg, we held that a seriously retarded adult had a liberty interest in safety and freedom from bodily restraint, 457 U. S., at 320. Youngberg, however, did not deal with decisions to administer or withhold medical treatment.
The difficulty with petitioners’ claim is that in a sense it begs the question: An incompetent person is not able to make an informed and voluntary choice to exercise a hypothetical right to refuse treatment or any other right. Such a “right” must be exercised for her, if at all, by some sort of surrogate. Here, Missouri has in effect recognized that under certain circumstances a surrogate may act for the patient in electing to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn in such a way as to cause death, but it has established a procedural safeguard to assure that the action of the surrogate conforms as best it may to the wishes expressed by the patient while competent. Missouri requires that evidence of the incompetent’s wishes as to the withdrawal of treatment be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The question, then, is whether the United States Constitution forbids the establishment of this procedural requirement by the State. We hold that it does not.
Whether or not Missouri’s clear and convincing evidence requirement comports with the United States Constitution depends in part on what interests the State may properly seek to protect in this situation. Missouri relies on its interest in the protection and preservation of human life, and there can be no gainsaying this interest. As a general matter, the States — indeed, all civilized nations — demonstrate their commitment to life by treating homicide as a serious crime. Moreover, the majority of States in this country have laws imposing criminal penalties on one who assists another to commit suicide. We do not think a State is required to remain neutral in the face of an informed and voluntary decision by a physically able adult to starve to death.
But in the context presented here, a State has more particular interests at stake. The choice between life and death is a deeply personal decision of obvious and overwhelming finality. We believe Missouri may legitimately seek to safeguard the personal element of this choice through the imposition of heightened evidentiary requirements. It cannot be disputed that the Due Process Clause protects an interest in life as well as an interest in refusing life-sustaining medical treatment. Not all incompetent patients will have loved ones available to serve as surrogate decisionmakers. And even where family members are present, “[t]here will, of course, be some unfortunate situations in which family members will not act to protect a patient.” In re Jobes, 108 N. J. 394, 419, 529 A. 2d 434, 447 (1987). A State is entitled to guard against potential abuses in such situations. Similarly, a State is entitled to consider that a judicial proceeding to make a determination regarding an incompetent’s wishes may very well not be an adversarial one, with the added guarantee of accurate factfinding that the adversary process brings with it. See Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, post, at 515-516. Finally, we think a State may properly decline to make judgments about the “quality” of life that a particular individual may enjoy, and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual.
In our view, Missouri has permissibly sought to advance these interests through the adoption of a “clear and convincing” standard of proof to govern such proceedings. “The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’” Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 423 (1979) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring)). “This Court has mandated an intermediate standard of proof — ‘clear and convincing evidence’ — when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both ‘particularly important’ and ‘more substantial than mere loss of money.’” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 756 (1982) (quoting Addington, supra, at 424). Thus, such a standard has been required in deportation proceedings, Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276 (1966), in denaturalization proceedings, Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118 (1943), in civil commitment proceedings, Addington, supra, and in proceedings for the termination of parental rights, Santosky, supra. " Further, this level of proof, “or an even higher one, has traditionally been imposed in cases involving allegations of civil fraud, and in a variety of other kinds of civil cases involving such issues as... lost wills, oral contracts to make bequests, and the like.” Woodby, supra, at 285, n. 18.
We think it self-evident that the interests at stake in the instant proceedings are more substantial, both on an individual and societal level, than those involved in a run-of-the-mine civil dispute. But not only does the standard of proof reflect the importance of a particular adjudication, it also serves as “a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants.” Santosky, supra, at 755; Addington, supra, at 423. The more stringent the burden of proof a party must bear, the more that party bears the risk of an erroneous decision. We believe that Missouri may permissibly place an increased risk of an erroneous decision on those seeking to terminate an incompetent individual’s life-sustaining treatment. An erroneous decision not to terminate results in a maintenance of the status quo; the possibility of subsequent developments such as advancements in medical science, the discovery of new evidence regarding the patient’s intent, changes in the law, or simply the unexpected death of the patient despite the administration of life-sustaining treatment at least create the potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected or its impact mitigated. An erroneous decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, however, is not susceptible of correction. In Santosky, one of the factors which led the Court to require proof by clear and convincing evidence in a proceeding to terminate parental rights was that a decision in such a case was final and irrevocable. Santosky, supra, at 759. The same must surely be said of the decision to discontinue hydration and nutrition of a patient such as Nancy Cru-zan, which all agree will result in her death.
It is also worth noting that most, if not all, States simply forbid oral testimony entirely in determining the wishes of parties in transactions which, while important, simply do not have the consequences that a decision to terminate a person’s life does. At common law and by statute in most States, the parol evidence rule prevents the variations of the terms of a written contract by oral testimony. The statute of frauds makes unenforceable oral contracts to leave property by will, and statutes regulating the making of wills universally require that those instruments be in writing. See 2 A. Corbin, Contracts §398, pp. 360-361 (1950); 2 W. Page, Law of Wills §§ 19.3-19.5, pp. 61-71 (1960). There is no doubt that statutes requiring wills to be in writing, and statutes of frauds which require that a contract to make a will be in writing, on occasion frustrate the effectuation of the intent of a particular decedent, just as Missouri’s requirement of proof in this case may have frustrated the effectuation of the not-fully-expressed desires of Nancy Cruzan. But the Constitution does not require general rules to work faultlessly; no general rule can.
In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state. We note that many courts which have adopted some sort of substituted judgment procedure in situations like this, whether they limit consideration of evidence to the prior expressed wishes of the incompetent individual, or whether they allow more general proof of what the individual’s decision would have been, require a clear and convincing standard of proof for such evidence. See, e. g., Longeway, 133 Ill. 2d, at 50-51, 549 N. E. 2d, at 300; McConnell, 209 Conn., at 707-710, 553 A. 2d, at 604-605; O’Connor, 72 N. Y. 2d, at 529-530, 531 N. E. 2d, at 613; In re Gardner, 534 A. 2d 947, 952-953 (Me. 1987); In re Jobes, 108 N. J., at 412-413, 529 A. 2d, at 443; Leach v. Akron General Medical Center, 68 Ohio Misc. 1, 11, 426 N. E. 2d 809, 815 (1980).
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that in this case the testimony adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of the patient’s desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn. In so doing, it reversed a decision of the Missouri trial court which had found that the evidence “suggested]” Nancy Cruzan would not have desired to continue such measures, App. to Pet. for Cert. A98, but which had not adopted the standard of “clear and convincing evidence” enunciated by the Supreme Court. The testimony adduced at trial consisted primarily of Nancy Cruzan’s statements made to a housemate about a year before her accident that she would not want to live should she face life as a “vegetable,” and other observations to the same effect. The observations did not deal in terms with withdrawal of medical treatment or of hydration and nutrition. We cannot say that the Supreme Court of Missouri committed constitutional error in reaching the conclusion that it did.
Petitioners alternatively contend that Missouri must accept the “substituted judgment” of close family members even in the absence of substantial proof that their views re-fleet the views of the patient. They rely primarily upon our decisions in Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U. S. 110
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
E
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Ocala Star-Banner Co., a petitioner in this case, publishes a small daily newspaper serving four counties in rural Florida. On April 18, 1966, the Star-Banner printed a story to the effect that the respondent, Leonard Damron, then the mayor of Crystal River in Citrus County and a candidate for the office of county tax assessor, had been charged in a federal court with perjury, and that his case had been held over until the following term of that court. This story was false. The respondent had not been charged with any crime in federal court, nor had any case involving him been held over, but the story was substantially accurate as to his brother, James Damron. Two weeks later the respondent was defeated in the election for county tax assessor.
He filed the present suit against the Star-Banner in the Circuit Court of Marion County, Florida, alleging that the article was “libelous per se,” and that it had caused him “irreparable damages to his reputation, as an individual, public officer, candidate for public office and as a businessman.” He asked $50,000 as compensatory damages and $500,000 as punitive damages. At the trial, the newspaper did not deny that the story was wholly false as to the respondent, and explained the error as the result of a “mental aberration” by one of the paper’s area editors. The area editor had been working for the paper for a little more than a month. He testified that he had run several stories about the political activities of the respondent, but had never heard of his brother James. When a local reporter telephoned in the story, correctly identifying the protagonist as James Damron, he inadvertently changed the name. The respondent presented evidence tending to cast doubt on this explanation.
At the close of the evidence, the respondent moved for a directed verdict on the issue of liability, and the trial judge granted the motion. The case then went to the jury on the issue of damages, with instructions which included the following:
“The Court instructs the Jury that you need not consider whether a libel has been committed and instructs you that there must be a finding in favor of the Plaintiff in accordance with the other instructions given you by the Court. ... You are instructed that in this case the charge made against the Plaintiff was libelous, per se, and that it created a presumption of damage to the Plaintiff but that if this presumption of damage is overcome by evidence offered by the parties and there is no proof of general damage to the Plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence, then you cannot award anything more than nominal damages to the Plaintiff. The Court instructs the Jury that if you believe from the evidence and by the instructions of the Court that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants, then in addition to any compensatory damages, if any, that he may have — may recover, you may, as hereinafter stated, award the Plaintiff punitive damages when malice is shown or implied. . . . The Court instructs the Jury that malice may be implied or inferred where the charge of a felony is imputed to the Plaintiff. In other words, if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the Defendants imputed the charge of perjury to the Plaintiff, of which he was not guilty, then you may infer that it was maliciously made and it is not necessary to prove any express malice or ill-will in order to warrant a verdict for punitive damages in favor of the Plaintiff.”
The jury awarded Damron compensatory damages of $22,000 but failed to award any punitive damages.
The Star-Banner moved for a new trial, arguing that the case should have been sent to the jury under the “actual malice” test laid down by this Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254. The trial judge denied the motion on the ground that New York Times and later cases “relating to public officials or public figures in the official conduct of their office or position are not applicable to this cause of action which was founded upon a newspaper publication of the Defendants which was libelous per se and made no reference to the public offices held or sought by the Plaintiff.” The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that:
“An examination of the defamatory publication which gave rise to this case reveals that the plaintiff’s official conduct or the manner in which he performed his duties were not the basis for the inaccuracy here involved; and, hence, it does not come within the protection afforded by the rule announced in the New York Times case. It follows therefore that the trial judge correctly held that it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to show malice.” 221 So. 2d 459, 461.
The Supreme Court of Florida refused to review the judgment, 231 So. 2d 822, and we granted certiorari to consider the federal constitutional issues presented. 397 U. S. 1073.
As the mayor of Crystal River, the respondent Leonard Damron was without question a “public official” within the meaning given the term in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra. As such, he clearly fell within the rule that “prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Id., at 279-280. In his status as a candidate for the office of county tax assessor, he fell within the same rule. Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, ante, p. 265.
Yet it is clear that the New York Times test was not applied in the trial of this case. The trial judge himself resolved the issues of publication and falsehood against the newspaper. He then instructed the jury that since the article was “libelous, per se,” its only task was to determine damages. Since the respondent was permitted to recover without a finding that the newspaper either knew the article was false or published it in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, the judgment must be reversed unless there is some basis for saying that the rule of New York Times does not apply to the particular libel in question. Henry v. Collins, 380 U. S. 356; Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130, 142-143, 158 (opinion of Harlan, J.); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn. v. Bresler, 398 U. S. 6.
The respondent urges upon us that a basis for distinguishing New York Times does exist, because the rule of that case applies only to “official conduct,” and a charge of indictment for perjury committed during testimony in a federal civil rights suit is a purely “private” libel. This contention is disposed of by our decision today in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, supra. In that case we held that a charge of criminal conduct against an official or a candidate, no matter how remote in time or place, is always “relevant to his fitness for office” for purposes of applying the New York Times rule of knowing falsehood or reckless disregard of the truth. Public discussion about the qualifications of a candidate for elective office presents what is probably the strongest possible case for application of the New York Times rule. And under any test we can conceive, the charge that a local mayor and candidate for a county elective post has been indicted for perjury in a civil rights suit is relevant to his fitness for office. Cf. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 77.
The First and Fourteenth Amendments require reversal of the judgment. The case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[For separate opinion of Mr. Justice Black, see ante, p. 277.]
The story appeared under a three-column head (“Damron Case Passed Over To Next U. S. Court Term”) and was as follows:
“INGLIS — A case charging local garage owner Leonard Damron with perjury was passed over for the present term of Federal Court after Damron entered a not guilty plea before Federal Judge Harrold Carswell in Gainesville.
“Damron was indicted by a Federal grand jury in Tallahassee last January and charged with perjury in a 1964 civil case which resulted in damages of $65,000 being awarded to a Yankeetown couple.
“Mrs. Gail Finley alleged that Levy County Deputy Sammy Cason slammed on brakes causing her to injure her neck in October of 1962.
“Cason and Deputy Walter Beckham went to Yankeetown with a warrant for the arrest of Mrs. Jean Rich Sill, who was allegedly in the Izaac Walton Lodge.
“According to officials, the Finleys interfered with the officers, were arrested and charged with interfering with arrest.
“A conviction obtained in County Court has been upheld through appeals by the Florida State Supreme Court.
“The civil suit which followed was filed under an old, 'little-used federal statute in which the Finleys charged former sheriff J. W. Turner and Cason with a violation of their civil rights.
“Damron testified that he had seen Mrs. Finley in a neck brace in late 1957 or early 1958 several years prior to the incident, but numerous other witnesses, summoned by the plaintiff, gave testimony, saying that Mrs. Finley had not previously worn a brace.
“Damron was released on $2,000 bond, following his arrest by federal marshals Jan. 27.”
The Star-Banner printed two retractions before the election.
The respondent’s argument that the newspaper “admitted liability” at trial, and that the constitutional issue of the applicability of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, is therefore not properly before us, must be rejected since both the trial court on motion for new trial and the state appellate court considered and passed upon the constitutional question as though properly raised. WHYY v. Glassboro, 393 U. S. 117, 119; Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, 436; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 134.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 283 n. 23.
Both the trial judge on motion for new trial and the District Court of Appeal rested their conclusion that New York Times did not apply partly on the ground that the defamatory article nowhere mentioned the respondent’s status as mayor of Crystal River or as a candidate for county tax assessor. The respondent has not pursued that theory here.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Act), 94 Stat. 2767, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§9601-9675, in response to the serious environmental and health risks posed by industrial pollution. See United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U. S. 51, 55 (1998). The Act was designed to promote the “‘timely cleanup of hazardous waste sites’ ” and to ensure that the costs of such cleanup efforts were borne by those responsible for the contamination. Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. UGI Util., Inc., 423 F. 3d 90, 94 (CA2 2005); see also Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U. S. 479, 483 (1996); Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 805 F. 2d 1074, 1081 (CA1 1986). These cases raise the questions whether and to what extent a party associated with a contaminated site may be held responsible for the full costs of remediation.
I
In 1960, Brown & Bryant, Inc. (B&B), began operating an agricultural chemical distribution business, purchasing pesticides and other chemical products from suppliers such as Shell Oil Company (Shell). Using its own equipment, B&B applied its products to customers’ farms. B&B opened its business on a 3.8-acre parcel of former farmland in Arvin, California, and in 1975, expanded operations onto an adjacent 0.9-acre parcel of land owned jointly by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (now known respectively as the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company) (Railroads). Both parcels of the Arvin facility were graded toward a sump and drainage pond located on the southeast corner of the primary parcel. See Appendix, infra. Neither the sump nor the drainage pond was lined until 1979, allowing waste water and chemical runoff from the facility to seep into the ground water below.
During its years of operation, B&B stored and distributed various hazardous chemicals on its property. Among these were the herbicide dinoseb, sold by Dow Chemicals, and the pesticides D-D and Nemagon, both sold by Shell. Dinoseb was stored in 55-gallon drums and 5-gallon containers on a concrete slab outside B&B’s warehouse. Nemagon was stored in 30-gallon drums and 5-gallon containers inside the warehouse. Originally, B&B purchased D-D in 55-gallon drums; beginning in the mid-1960’s, however, Shell began requiring its distributors to maintain bulk storage facilities for D-D. From that time onward, B&B purchased D-D in bulk.
When B&B purchased D-D, Shell would arrange for delivery by common carrier, f.o.b. destination. When the product arrived, it was transferred from tanker trucks to a bulk storage tank located on B&B’s primary parcel. From there, the chemical was transferred to bobtail trucks, nurse tanks, and pull rigs: During each of these transfers leaks and spills could — and often did — occur. Although the common carrier and B&B used buckets to catch spills from hoses and gaskets connecting the tanker trucks to its bulk storage tank, the buckets sometimes overflowed or were knocked over, causing D-D to spill onto the ground during the transfer process.
Aware that spills of D-D were commonplace among its distributors, in the late 1970’s Shell took several steps to encourage the safe handling of its products. Shell provided distributors with detailed safety manuals and instituted a voluntary discount program for distributors that made improvements in their bulk handling and safety facilities. Later, Shell revised its program to require distributors to obtain an inspection by a qualified engineer and provide self-certification of compliance with applicable laws and regulations. B&B’s Arvin facility was inspected twice, and in 1981, B&B certified to Shell that it had made a number of recommended improvements to its facilities.
Despite these improvements, B&B remainéd a “ ‘[s]loppy’ [ojperator.” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 07-1601, p. 130a, ¶ 186(Y). Over the course of B&B’s 28 years of operation, delivery spills, equipment failures, and the rinsing of tanks and trucks allowed Nemagon, D-D, and dinoseb to seep into the soil and upper levels of ground water of the Arvin facility. In 1983, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) began investigating B&B’s violation of hazardous waste laws, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) soon followed suit, discovering significant contamination of soil and ground water. Of particular concern was a plume of contaminated ground water located under the facility that threatened to leach into an adjacent supply of potential drinking water.
Although B&B undertook some efforts at remediation, by 1989 it had become insolvent and ceased all operations. That same year, the Arvin facility was added to the National Priority List, see 54 Fed. Reg. 41027, and subsequently, DTSC and EPA (Governments) exercised their authority under 42 U. S. C. § 9604 to undertake cleanup efforts at the site. By 1998, the Governments had spent more than $8 million responding to the site contamination; their costs have continued to accrue.
In 1991, EPA issued an administrative order to the Railroads directing them, as owners of a portion of the property on which the Arvin facility was located, to perform certain remedial tasks in connection with the site. The Railroads did so, incurring expenses of more than $3 million in the process. Seeking to recover at least a portion of their response costs, in 1992 the Railroads brought suit against B&B in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. In 1996, that lawsuit was consolidated with two recovery actions brought by DTSC and EPA against Shell and the Railroads.
The District Court conducted a 6-week bench trial in 1999 and four years later entered a judgment in favor of the Governments. In a lengthy order supported by 507 separate findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court held that both the Railroads and Shell were potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under CERCLA — the Railroads because they were owners of a portion of the facility, see 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a)(l)-(2), and Shell because it had “arranged for” the disposal of hazardous substances through its sale and delivery of D-D, see § 9607(a)(3).
Although the court found the parties liable, it did not impose joint and several liability on Shell and the Railroads for the entire response cost incurred by the Governments. The court found that the site contamination created a single harm but concluded that the harm was divisible and therefore capable of apportionment. Based on three figures — the percentage of the total area of the facility that was owned by the Railroads, the duration of B&B’s business divided by the term of the Railroads’ lease, and the Court's determination that only two of three polluting chemicals spilled on the leased parcel required remediation and that those two chemicals were responsible for roughly two-thirds of the overall site contamination requiring remediation — the court apportioned the Railroads’ liability as 9% of the Governments’ total response cost. Based on estimations of chemical spills of Shell products, the court held Shell liable for 6% of the total site response cost.
The Governments appealed the District Court’s apportionment, and Shell cross-appealed the court’s finding of liability. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Shell did not qualify as a “traditional” arranger under § 9607(a)(3), insofar as it had not contracted with B&B to directly dispose of a hazardous waste product. 520 F. 3d 918, 948 (CA9 2008). Nevertheless, the court stated that Shell could still be held liable under a “ ‘broader’ category of arranger liability” if the “disposal of hazardous wastes [wa]s a foreseeable byproduct of, but not the purpose of, the transaction giving rise to” arranger liability. Ibid. Relying on CERCLA’s definition of “disposal,” which covers acts such as “leaking” and “spilling,” 42 U. S. C. §6903(3), the Ninth Circuit concluded that an entity could arrange for “disposal” “even if it did not intend to dispose” of a hazardous substance. 520 F. 3d, at 949.
Applying that theory of arranger liability to the District Court’s findings of fact, the Ninth Circuit held that Shell arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance through its sale and delivery of D-D:
“Shell arranged for delivery of the substances to the site by its subcontractors; was aware of, and to some degree dictated, the transfer arrangements; knew that some leakage was likely in the transfer process; and provided advice and supervision concerning safe transfer and storage. Disposal of a hazardous substance was thus a necessary part of the sale and delivery process.” Id., at 950.
Under such circumstances, the court concluded, arranger liability was not precluded by the fact that the purpose of Shell’s action had been to transport a useful and previously unused product to B&B for sale.
On the subject of apportionment, the Court of Appeals found “no dispute” on the question whether the harm caused by Shell and the Railroads was capable of apportionment. Id., at 942. The court observed that a portion of the site contamination occurred before the Railroad parcel became part of the facility, only some of the hazardous substances were stored on the Railroad parcel, and “only some of the water on the facility washed over the Railroads’ site.” Ibid. With respect to Shell, the court noted that not all of the hazardous substances spilled on the facility had been sold by Shell. Given those facts, the court readily concluded that “the contamination traceable to the Railroads and Shell, with adequate information, would be allocable, as would be the cost of cleaning up that contamination.” Ibid. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court erred in finding that the record established a reasonable basis for apportionment. Because the burden of proof on the question of apportionment rested with Shell and the Railroads, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s apportionment of liability and held Shell and the Railroads jointly and severally liable for the Governments’ cost of responding to the contamination of the Arvin facility.
The Railroads and Shell moved for rehearing en banc, which the Court of Appeals denied over the dissent of eight judges. See id., at 952 (Bea, J., dissenting). We granted certiorari to determine whether Shell was properly held liable as an entity that had “arranged for disposal” of hazardous substances within the meaning of § 9607(a)(3), and whether Shell and the Railroads were properly held liable for all response costs incurred by EPA and the State of California. See 554 U. S. 945 (2008). Finding error on both points, we now reverse.
II
CERCLA imposes strict liability for environmental contamination upon four broad classes of PRPs:
“(1) the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility,
“(2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of,
“(3) any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances, and
“(4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to disposal or treatment facilities, incineration vessels or sites selected by such person, from which there is a release, or a threatened release which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance...42 U. S. C. § 9607(a).
Once an entity is identified as a PEP, it may be compelled to clean up a contaminated area or reimburse the Government for its past and future response costs. See Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 161 (2004).
In these cases, it is undisputed that the Railroads qualify as PRPs under both §§ 9607(a)(1) and 9607(a)(2) because they owned the land leased by B&B at the time of the contamination and continue to own it now. The more difficult question is whether Shell also qualifies as a PRP under § 9607(a)(3) by virtue of the circumstances surrounding its sales to B&B.
To determine whether Shell may be held liable as an arranger, we begin with the language of the statute. As relevant here, § 9607(a)(3) applies to an entity that “arrange[sj for disposal... of hazardous substances.” It is plain from the language of the statute that CERCLA liability would attach under § 9607(a)(3) if an entity were to enter into a transaction for the sole purpose of discarding a used and no longer useful hazardous substance. It is similarly clear that an entity could not be held liable as an arranger merely for selling a new and useful product if the purchaser of that product later, and unbeknownst to the seller, disposed of the product in a way that led to contamination. See Freeman v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., 189 F. 3d 160, 164 (CA2 1999); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 893 F. 2d 1313, 1318 (CA11 1990). Less clear is the liability attaching to the many permutations of “arrangements” that fall between these two extremes — cases in which the seller has some knowledge of the buyers’ planned disposal or whose motives for the “sale” of a hazardous substance are less than clear. In such cases, courts have concluded that the determination whether an entity is an arranger requires a fact-intensive inquiry that looks beyond the parties’ characterization of the transaction as a “disposal” or a “sale” and seeks to discern whether the arrangement was one Congress intended to fall within the scope of CERCLA’s strict-liability provisions. See Freeman, 189 F. 3d, at 164; Pneumo Abex Corp. v. High Point, Thomasville & Denton R. Co., 142 F. 3d 769, 775 (CA4 1998) (“ ‘[T]here is no bright line between a sale and a disposal under CERCLA. A party’s responsibility... must by necessity turn on a fact-specific inquiry into the nature of the transaction’ ” (quoting United States v. Petersen Sand & Gravel, 806 F. Supp. 1346, 1354 (ND Ill. 1992))); Florida Power & Light Co., 893 F. 2d, at 1318.
Although we agree that the question whether § 9607(a)(3) liability attaches is fact intensive and case specific, such liability may not extend beyond the limits of the statute itself. Because CERCLA does not specifically define what it means to “arrangfe] for” disposal of a hazardous substance, see, e. g., United States v. Cello-Foil Prods., Inc., 100 F. 3d 1227, 1231 (CA6 1996); Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 2 F. 3d 746, 751 (CA7 1993); Florida Power & Light Co., 893 F. 2d, at 1317, we give the phrase its ordinary meaning. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Cty., 555 U. S. 271, 276 (2009); Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 42 (1979). In common parlance, the word “arrange” implies action directed to a specific purpose. See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 64 (10th ed. 1993) (defining “arrange” as “to make preparations for: plan[;]... to bring about an agreement or understanding concerning”); see also Amcast Indus. Corp., 2 F. 3d, at 751 (words “‘arranged for’... imply intentional action”). Consequently, under the plain language of the statute, an entity may qualify as an arranger under § 9607(a)(3) when it takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance. See Cello-Foil Prods., Inc., 100 F. 3d, at 1231 (“[I]t would be error for us not to recognize the indispensable role that state of mind must play in determining whether a party has ‘otherwise arranged for disposal... of hazardous substances’ ”).
The Governments do not deny that the statute requires an entity to “arrang[e] for” disposal; however, they interpret that phrase by reference to the statutory term “disposal,” which the Act broadly defines as “the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water.” 42 U. S. C. § 6903(3); see also § 9601(29) (adopting the definition of “disposal” contained in the Solid Waste Disposal Act). The Governments assert that by including unintentional acts such as “spilling” and “leaking” in the definition of disposal, Congress intended to impose liability on entities not only when they directly dispose of waste products but also when they engage in legitimate sales of hazardous substances knowing that some disposal may occur as a collateral consequence of the sale itself. Applying that reading of the statute, the Governments contend that Shell arranged for the disposal of D-D within the meaning of § 9607(a)(3) by shipping D-D to B&B under conditions it knew would result in the spilling of a portion of the hazardous substance by the purchaser or common carrier. See Brief for United States 24 (“Although the delivery of a useful product was the ultimate purpose of the arrangement, Shell’s continued participation in the delivery, with knowledge that spills and leaks would result, was sufficient to establish Shell’s intent to dispose of hazardous substances”). Because these spills resulted in wasted D-D, a result Shell anticipated, the Governments insist that Shell was properly found to have arranged for the disposal of D-D.
While it is true that in some instances an entity’s knowledge that its product will be leaked, spilled, dumped, or otherwise discarded may provide evidence of the entity’s intent to dispose of its hazardous wastes, knowledge alone is insufficient to prove that an entity “planned for” the disposal, particularly when the disposal occurs as a peripheral result of the legitimate sale of an unused, useful product. In order to qualify as an arranger, Shell must have entered into the sale of D-D with the intention that at least a portion of the product be disposed of during the transfer process by one or more of the methods described in § 6903(3). Here, the facts found by the District Court do not support such a conclusion.
Although the evidence adduced at trial showed that Shell was aware that minor, accidental spills occurred during the transfer of D-D from the common carrier to B&B’s bulk storage tanks after the product had arrived at the Arvin facility and had come under B&B’s stewardship, the evidence does not support an inference that Shell intended such spills to occur. To the contrary, the evidence revealed that Shell took numerous steps to encourage its distributors to reduce the likelihood of such spills, providing them with detailed safety manuals, requiring them to maintain adequate storage facilities, and providing discounts for those that took safety precautions. Although Shell’s efforts were less than wholly successful, given these facts, Shell’s mere knowledge that spills and leaks continued to occur is insufficient grounds for concluding that Shell “arranged for” the disposal of D-D within the meaning of § 9607(a)(3). Accordingly, we conclude that Shell was not liable as an arranger for the contamination that occurred at B&B’s Arvin facility.
Ill
Having concluded that Shell is not liable as an arranger, we need not decide whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the District Court’s apportionment of Shell’s liability for the cost of remediation. We must, however, determine whether the Railroads were properly held jointly and severally liable for the foil cost of the Governments’ response efforts.
The seminal opinion on the subject of apportionment in CERCLA actions was written in 1983 by Chief Judge Carl Rubin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp., 572 F. Supp. 802. After reviewing CERCLA’s history, Chief Judge Rubin concluded that although the Act imposed a “strict liability standard,” id., at 805, it did not mandate “joint and several” liability in every case, see id., at 807. Rather, Congress intended the scope of liability to “be determined from traditional and evolving principles of common law.” Id., at 808. The Chem-Dyne approach has been folly embraced by the Courts of Appeals. See, e. g., In re Bell Petroleum Servs., Inc., 3 F. 3d 889, 901-902 (CA5 1993); United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F. 2d 252, 268 (CA3 1992); O’Neil v. Picillo, 883 F. 2d 176, 178 (CA1 1989); United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F. 2d 160, 171-173 (CA4 1988).
Following Chem-Dyne, the Courts of Appeals have acknowledged that “[t]he universal starting point for divisibility of harm analyses in CERCLA cases” is §433A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. United States v. Hercules, Inc., 247 F. 3d 706, 717 (CA8 2001); Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. v. Bush, 292 F. 3d 254, 259 (CADC 2002); United States v. R. W. Meyer, Inc., 889 F. 2d 1497, 1507 (CA6 1989). Under the Restatement,
“when two or more persons acting independently eaus[e] a distinct or single harm for which there is a reasonable basis for division according to the contribution of each, each is subject to liability only for the portion of the total harm that he has himself caused. Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 433A, 881 (1976); Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971), pp. 313-314____ But where two or more persons cause a single and indivisible harm, each is subject to liability for the entire harm. Restatement (Second) of Torts, §875; Prosser at 315-316.” Chem-Dyne Corp., 572 F. Supp., at 810.
In other words, apportionment is proper when “there is a reasonable basis for determining the contribution of each cause to a single harm.” Restatement (Second) of Torts §433A(l)(b), p. 434 (1963-1964) (hereinafter Restatement).
Not all harms are capable of apportionment, however, and CERCLA defendants seeking to avoid joint and several liability bear the burden of proving that a reasonable basis for apportionment exists. See Chem-Dyne Corp., 572 F. Supp., at 810 (citing Restatement § 433B (1976)) (placing burden of proof on party seeking apportionment). When two or more causes produce a single, indivisible harm, “courts have refused to make an arbitrary apportionment for its own sake, and each of the causes is charged with responsibility for the entire harm.” Id., §433A, Comment i, at 440 (1963-1964).
Neither the parties nor the lower courts dispute the principles that govern apportionment in CERCLA cases, and both the District Court and Court of Appeals agreed that the harm created by the contamination of the Arvin site, although singular, was theoretically capable of apportionment. The question then is whether the record provided a reasonable basis for the District Court’s conclusion that the Railroads were liable for only 9% of the harm caused by contamination at the Arvin facility.
The District Court criticized the Railroads for taking a “‘scorched earth,’ all-or-nothing approach to liability,” failing to acknowledge any responsibility for the release of hazardous substances that occurred on their parcel throughout the 13-year period of B&B’s lease. According to the District Court, the Railroads’ position on liability, combined with the Governments’ refusal to acknowledge the potential divisibility of the harm, complicated the apportioning of liability. See App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 07-1601, at 236a-237a, ¶ 455 (“All parties... effectively abdicated providing any helpful arguments to the court and have left the court to independently perform the equitable apportionment analysis demanded by the circumstances of the case”). Yet despite the parties’ failure to assist the court in linking the evidence supporting apportionment to the proper allocation of liability, the District Court ultimately concluded that this was “a classic ‘divisible in terms of degree’ case, both as to the time period in which defendants’ conduct occurred, and ownership existed, and as to the estimated maximum contribution of each party’s activities that released hazardous substances that caused Site contamination.” Id., at 239a, ¶462. Consequently, the District Court apportioned liability, assigning the Railroads 9% of the total remediation costs.
The District Court calculated the Railroads’ liability based on three figures. First, the court noted that the Railroad parcel constituted only 19% of the surface area of the Arvin site. Second, the court observed that the Railroads had leased their parcel to B&B for 13 years, which was only 45% of the time B&B operated the Arvin facility. Finally, the court found that the volume of hazardous-substance-releasing activities on the B&B property was at least 10 times greater than the releases that occurred on the Railroad parcel, and it concluded that only spills of two chemicals, Nemagon and dinoseb (not D-D), substantially contributed to the contamination that had originated on the Railroad parcel and that those two chemicals had contributed to two-thirds of the overall site contamination requiring remediation. The court then multiplied.19 by.45 by.66 (two-thirds) and rounded up to determine that the Railroads were responsible for approximately 6% of the remediation costs. “Allowing for calculation errors up to 50%,” the court con-eluded that the Railroads could be held responsible for 9% of the total CERCLA response cost for the Arvin site. Id., at 252a, ¶ 489.
The Court of Appeals criticized the evidence on which the District Court’s conclusions rested, finding a lack of sufficient data to establish the precise proportion of contamination that occurred on the relative portions of the Arvin facility and the rate of contamination in the years prior to B&B’s addition of the Railroad parcel. The court noted that neither the duration of the lease nor the size of the leased area alone was a reliable measure of the harm caused by activities on the property owned by the Railroads, and — as the court’s upward adjustment confirmed — the court had relied on estimates rather than specific and detailed records as a basis for its conclusions.
Despite these criticisms, we conclude that the facts contained in the record reasonably supported the apportionment of liability. The District Court’s detailed findings make it abundantly clear that the primary pollution at the Arvin facility was contained in an unlined sump and an unlined pond in the southeastern portion of the facility most distant from the Railroads’ parcel and that the spills of hazardous chemicals that occurred on the Railroad parcel contributed to no more than 10% of the total site contamination, see id., at 247a-248a, some of which did not require remediation. With those background facts in mind, we are persuaded that it was reasonable for the court to use the size of the leased parcel and the duration of the lease as the starting point for its analysis. Although the Court of Appeals faulted the District Court for relying on the “simplest of considerations: percentages of land area, time of ownership, and types of hazardous products,” 520 F. 3d, at 943, these were the same factors the court had earlier acknowledged were relevant to the apportionment analysis, see id., at 936, n. 18 (“We of course agree with our sister circuits that, if adequate information is available, divisibility may be established by ‘volumetric, chronological, or other types of evidence,’ including appropriate geographic considerations” (citations omitted)).
The Court of Appeals also criticized the District Court’s assumption that spills of Nemagon and dinoseb were responsible for only two-thirds of the chemical spills requiring remediation, observing that each PRP’s share of the total harm was not necessarily equal to the quantity of pollutants that were deposited on its portion of the total facility. Although the evidence adduced by the parties did not allow the court to calculate precisely the amount of hazardous chemicals contributed by the Railroad parcel to the total site contamination or the exact percentage of harm caused by each chemical, the evidence did show that fewer spills occurred on the Railroad parcel and that of those spills that occurred, not all were carried across the Railroad parcel to the B&B sump and pond from which most of the contamination originated. The fact that no D-D spills on the Railroad parcel required remediation lends strength to the District Court’s conclusion that the Railroad parcel contributed only Nemagon and dinoseb in quantities requiring remediation.
The District Court’s conclusion that those two chemicals accounted for only two-thirds of the contamination requiring remediation finds less support in the record; however, any miscalculation on that point is harmless in light of the District Court’s ultimate allocation of liability, which included a 50% margin of error equal to the 3% reduction in liability the District Court provided based on its assessment of the effect of the Nemagon and dinoseb spills. Had the District Court limited its apportionment calculations to the amount of time the Railroad parcel was in use and the percentage of the facility located on that parcel, it would have assigned the Railroads 9% of the response cost. By including a two-thirds reduction in liability for the Nemagon and dinoseb with a 50% “margin of error,” the District Court reached the same result. Because the District Court’s ultimate allocation of liability is supported by the evidence and comports with the apportionment principles outlined above, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the Railroads are subject to joint and several liability for all response costs arising out of the contamination of the Arvin facility.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred by holding Shell liable as an arranger under CERCLA for the costs of remediating environmental contamination at the Arvin, California, facility. Furthermore, we conclude that the District Court reasonably apportioned the Railroads’ share of the site remediation costs at 9%. The judgment is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX
Because D-D is corrosive, bulk storage of the chemical led to numerous tank failures and spills as the chemical rusted tanks and eroded valves.
F.o.b. destination means “the seller must at his own expense and risk transport the goods to [the destination] and there tender delivery of them....” U. C. C. §2-319(l)(b) (2001). The District Court found that B&B assumed “stewardship” over the D-D as soon as the common carrier entered the Arvin facility. App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 07-1601, p. 124a, ¶ 160.
The ground water at the Arvin site is divided into three zones. The A-zone is located 60-80 feet below the ground. It has been tested and found to have high levels of contamination. The B-zone is located 150 feet below ground. Although the B-zone is not currently used as a source of drinking water, it has the potential to serve as such a source. No contamination has yet been found in that zone. The C-zone is an aquifer located 200 feet below ground. It is the sole current source of drinking water and, thus far, has suffered no contamination from the Arvin site.
Although the Railroads did not produce precise figures regarding the exact quantity of chemical spills on each parcel in each year of the facility’s operation, the District Court found it “indisputable that the overwhelming majority of hazardous substances were released from the B&B parcel.” Id., at 248a, ¶ 477. The court explained that “the predominant activities conducted on the Railroad parcel through the years were storage and some washing and rinsing of tanks, other receptades, and chemical application vehicles. Mixing, formulating, loading, and unloading of ag-chemieal hazardous substances, which contributed most of the liability causing releases, were predominantly carried out by B&B on the B&B parcel.” Id., at 247a-248a, ¶476.
5 For purposes of the statute, a “person” is defined as “an individual, firm, corporation, association, partnership, consortium, joint venture, commercial entity, United States Government, State, municipality, commission, political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body.” 42 U. S. C. §9601(21).
Under CERCLA, PRPs are liable for:
“(A) all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State or an Indian tribe not inconsistent with the national contingency plan;
“(B) any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency plan;
“(C) damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing such injury, destruction, or loss resulting from such a release; and
“(D) the costs of any health assessment or health effects study carried out under section 9604(i) of this title.” § 9607(a)(4).
“Hazardous waste” is defined as “a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which... may... pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.” § 6903(5)(B); §9601(29).
CERCLA defines “hazardous substance” to include a variety of chemicals and toxins including those designated by EPA as air pollutants, water pollutants, and solid wastes. §9601(14).
As the Governments point out, insofar as the District Court made reference to equitable considerations favoring apportionment, it erred. Equitable considerations play no role in the apportionment analysis; rather, apportionment is proper only when the evidence supports the divisibility of the damages jointly caused by the PRPs. See generally United States v. Hercules, Inc., 247 F. 3d 706, 718-719 (CA8 2001); United States v. Brighton, 153 F. 3d 307, 318-319 (CA6 1998); Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments, 94 F. 3d 1489, 1513 (CA11 1996).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This direct appeal from a three-judge District Court involves the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission to permit discontinuance of trains operated by the appellee railroad wholly within the State of New Jersey. At issue is whether the discontinuance procedures of § 13a (1) or § 13a (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act (72 Stat. 571-572, 49 U. S. C. §§ 13a (1), 13a (2)) are to be followed.
Appellee, New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co., operates passenger trains between Butler, New Jersey, and Susquehanna Transfer, in North Bergen, New Jersey. Connecting buses, carrying only train passengers, run between North Bergen and the Port of New York Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. The buses are owned and operated by Public Service Coordinated Transport, a New Jersey corporation unaffiliated but under contract with appellee. According to appellee, nearly 90% of its passengers travel to and from New York.
As recently as 1956, appellee operated 30 passenger trains eastbound and 30 westbound on weekdays and 17 or 18 in each direction on weekends. Because of financial difficulties and continued losses on passenger train operations, appellee has, with the permission of the Public Utilities Commission of New Jersey, reduced the number of trains from time to time so that it now operates only three trains in each direction on weekdays and none on weekends. The last reduction was authorized on July 14, 1960.
On December 30, 1960, appellee filed a notice with the Interstate Commerce Commission stating that it would discontinue all passenger train service on January 30, 1961. On January 9, 1961, appellants petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission to dismiss the case without prejudice. Since appellee operated trains solely in New Jersey, appellants argued that the case was not, in the first instance, within the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission agreed and, on January 18, dismissed the notice for want of jurisdiction. Appellee then brought this suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to challenge the dismissal. A three-judge court was designated in accordance with 28 U. S. C. §§ 2321-2325 and 2284. The court, one judge dissenting, set aside the Commission’s order. 200 F. Supp. 860. New Jersey appealed directly to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 370 U. S. 933.
The question presented is whether the procedure for discontinuing trains set forth in § 13a (1) of the Interstate Commerce Act is available to the appellee railroad as the court below held, or whether it must follow that set forth in § 13a (2) of the Act. Section 13a (1) relates to “the discontinuance ... of the operation or service of any train or ferry operating from a point in one State to a point in any other State.” A railroad proceeding under this section must first file notices of the proposed discontinuance with the Interstate Commerce Commission, with the Governors of the States in which the train operates, and in every station served by the train. After 30 days, the railroad may discontinue the train unless the Commission has decided to investigate the discontinuance. The Commission may require the railroad to continue operations, pending its investigation, for an additional four months. It also may, at the conclusion of the investigation, order service continued for another year, if it is “required by public convenience and necessity” and if it “will not unduly burden interstate . . . commerce.”
Section 13a (2) governs “the discontinuance ... of the operation or service of any train or ferry operated wholly within the boundaries of a single State.” Under this section, the railroad is first required to seek relief from the appropriate state agency. Only after the state agency has denied the application of discontinuance, or has let 120 days elapse from the time the application was filed without acting, can the railroad seek authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission to discontinue the train. The Commission “may grant such authority only after full hearing.”
A comparison of the language of § 13a (1), which applies to “any train . . . operating from a, point in one State to a point in any other State” (italics supplied), and of § 13a (2), which applies to “any train . . . operated wholly within the boundaries of a single State” (italics supplied), makes it clear that the statute, on its face, requires appellee to proceed under the latter section. Appellee's trains do not run “from a point in one State to a point in any other State.” That appellee’s passengers, by other conveyances, cross a state line does not alter the conclusion; the statute speaks not of interstate commerce but of the physical limits of a train’s or ferry’s operations.
Any doubt about this construction of the statute is dispelled by an examination of its legislative history. Section 13a was enacted by Congress as part of the Transportation Act of 1958. The legislative history of that Act reveals Congress’ concern about the financial plight of railroads, attributable in part to the losses sustained in operating passenger trains. To discontinue these trains before the enactment of § 13a, the railroads were required in all cases to seek authority from each of the States served. See 104 Cong. Rec. 10842-10843, 10851. Without concurrence of all the States affected, the railroad might be compelled to continue operations despite serious losses. The Interstate Commerce Commission was able to give only partial relief. It could authorize the total abandonment of a line of railroad under § 1 (18) of the Act, even if the line was wholly within the boundaries of one State. Colorado v. United States, 271 U. S. 153. However the Commission could not permit partial discontinuance of service over a line of railroad, whether the line crossed state boundaries or not. Board of Public Utility Comm’rs of New Jersey v. United States, 158 F. Supp. 98, probable jurisdiction noted, 357 U. S. 917, dismissed as moot, 359 U. S. 982. See Palmer v. Massachusetts, 308 U. S. 79, 84-85. Thus the Commission could not permit discontinuance of passenger operations while the railroad continued to carry-freight over the same line.
As initially proposed in the Senate, the Interstate Commerce Commission would have had power under § 13a to permit discontinuance “of the operation or service of any train or ferry engaged in the transportation of passengers or property in interstate, foreign and intrastate commerce ... or of the operation or service of any station, depot or other facility.” S. 3778, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. Opposition to the bill focused upon the reduction of state powers to control local train operations. E. g., 104 Cong. Rec. 10850. A compromise amendment in the Senate changed § 13a so that the Commission’s power would extend only to “any train or ferry engaged in the transportation of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce.” 104 Cong. Rec. 10862-10866. Reference to intrastate transportation was eliminated. And as finally reported out of conference, the Act was in its present form. The Interstate Commerce Commission’s jurisdiction was limited, in the first instance, to the “discontinuance ... of the operation or service of any train or ferry operating from a point in one State to a point in any other State.”
Senator Smathers, the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, said, in describing the Senate compromise amendment, that:
“any train which operates within a State, whose origin and destination are within the State — that is, any train with intrastate characteristics — together with the facilities used by the train, shall be completely under the authority of the State public utilities commission.” 104 Cong. Rec. 10852.
Congressman Harris, Chairman of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, similarly interpreted the more restrictive House version, H. R. 12832. He said the Interstate Commerce Commission was limited to authorizing the discontinuance
“of a train or ferry on a line of railroad not located wholly within a single State. This limitation is contained in the bill being reported because the committee feels that the record at this time does not support the broader change in venue, requested by the railroads, which would have covered Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction also over operations more local in character, such as those of a branch line or other line of railroad located solely within one State.” 104 Cong. Rec. 12533.
Congressman Harris repeatedly stated that even if the train in question operated on an interstate line, the state regulatory agency would have jurisdiction if the train started and ended within the State. 104 Cong. Rec. 12530, 12542.
Finally, Senator Smathers’ comments, made after the Senate-House Conference changed the bill to its present form, should be noted. He said:
“we protected the right of the States ... by leaving to the State regulatory agencies the right to regulate and have a final decision with respect to the discontinuance of train service which originated and ended within one particular State, except when it could be established that intrastate service was a burden on interstate commerce.
“In addition, the Senate receded on a provision under which we had given the Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction also to discontinue service in depots, terminals, and other such facilities in connection with the operation of railroads. We left that matter in the hands of the State regulatory agencies.” 104 Cong. Rec. 15528.
It is clear to us from this history, as it was to the Commission, that Congress intended to, and did, leave “[jurisdiction over trains operating wholly within a single State . . . with State regulatory commissions.”
The court below disregarded the plain words of the statute and what we believe is the pertinent legislative history and rested its decision on the ground that to apply § 13a (1) so restrictively would “thwart the apparent purpose of the Congress in adopting it.” 200 F. Supp., at 864. That purpose was, as the court below observed, remedial. But it was conditioned by a desire to protect state jurisdiction over local operations. To ignore this we conclude was error. Therefore the judgment of the court below must be
Reversed.
Apparently one ground for the decision below was the belief (1) that “operation or service” of a train included bus service or (2) that “train” included a bus extension. As to the first, it should be noted that the Interstate Commerce Commission has decided, in interpreting § 1 (18) of the Act, that appellee’s bus service to New York is not part of a “line of railroad” and that appellee need not obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity before providing the bus transportation. New York, S. & W. R. Co. Common Carrier Application, 46 M. C. C. 713, 725. Admittedly “line of railroad” is a different term from “operation or service of any train.” However we should be loath to suggest that a train could operate where no line of railroad existed.
As to the second alternative, it is answer enough to note that the statute reads “any train or ferry.” No mention of “bus” is made.
The railroads appealing to this Court did not take issue with the Interstate Commerce Commission decisions holding that the Commission lacked power to authorize partial discontinuances. They argued that instead of partially discontinuing service they were abandoning a line of railroad.
In the Board of Public Utility Comm’rs of New Jersey case the three-judge District Court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission could not allow the New York Central Railroad to discontinue its passenger ferries across the Hudson River, while continuing to operate ferries for freight, if the ferries were all part of the same line of railroad. (Under § 1 (3) of the Act, the term “railroad” includes “ferries used by or operated in connection with any railroad.”) After Congress passed § 13a, the New York Central Railroad, among others, succeeded in eliminating its Hudson River passenger ferries. See New Jersey v. United States, 168 F. Supp. 324, aff’d per curiam, 359 U. S. 27. In fact, the New York Central Railroad claimed that its inability to discontinue the passenger ferries was the reason Congress enacted § 13a. 168 F. Supp., at 337, n. 1.
Apparently those who were concerned with the protection of the rights of the States were not satisfied with the compromise amendment, perhaps because it retained the phrase “engaged in the transportation of passengers or property in interstate . . . commerce.” In any event, they were successful in obtaining the omission of any reference to transportation in interstate commerce, since the Act as passed limited Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction, in the first instance, to the discontinuance of “any train . . . operating from a point in one State to a point in any other State.”
H. R. 12832 provided that: “this section [§ 13a] shall not apply to the operations of or services performed by any carrier by railroad on a fine of railroad located wholly within a single State.” 104 Cong. Rec. 12547. Also, the House bill eliminated the Interstate Commerce Commission’s jurisdiction over discontinuance of stations, depots and other facilities, leaving the state regulatory agencies’ power untouched. This change, embodied in the Act, is additional evidence of Congress’ intent to leave regulation of local operations to the States.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 four respondents were indicted on various counts and tried together in Federal District Court for participation in a large-scale cocaine distribution conspiracy. During the afternoon recess on the first day of trial the District Judge was discussing matters of law in open court with the respondents, their respective counsel, and the Assistant United States Attorney, outside the presence of the jury. The bailiff entered the courtroom and informed the judge that one of the jurors, Garold Graham, had expressed concern because he had noticed respondent Gagnon sketching portraits of the jury. Gagnon’s attorney admitted that Gagnon had been sketching jury members during the trial. The District Judge ordered that the practice cease immediately. Gagnon’s lawyer suggested that the judge question the juror to ascertain whether the sketching had prejudiced the juror against Gagnon. The judge then stated, still in open court in the presence of each respondent and his counsel; “I will talk to the juror in my chambers and make a determination. We’ll stand at recess.” No objections were made by any respondent and no respondent requested to be present at the discussion in chambers.
The District Judge then went into the chambers and called for juror Graham. The judge also requested the bailiff to bring Gagnon’s counsel to chambers. There the judge, in the company of Gagnon’s counsel, discussed the sketching with the juror. The juror stated:
“. . . I just thought that perhaps because of the seriousness of the trial, and because of — whichever way the deliberations go, it kind of — it upset me, because — of what could happen afterwards.”
The judge then explained that Gagnon was an artist, meant no harm, and the sketchings had been confiscated. The juror was assured that Gagnon would sketch no more. Graham stated that another juror had seen the sketching and made a comment to him about it but no one else seemed to have noticed, and no other jurors had discussed the matter. The judge then elicited from Graham his willingness to continue as an impartial juror. Gagnon’s counsel asked two questions of the juror and then stated that he was satisfied. The in camera meeting broke up, and the trial resumed. A transcript of the in camera proceeding was available to all of the parties; at no time did any respondent mention or object to the in camera interview of the juror. No motions were made to disqualify Graham or the other juror who witnessed the sketching, nor did any respondent request that cautionary instructions be given to the jury. After the jury returned guilty verdicts no post-trial motions concerning the incident were filed with the District Court.
On the consolidated appeal, however, each respondent claimed that the District Court’s discussion with the juror in chambers violated respondents’ Sixth Amendment rights to an impartial jury and their rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 to be present at all stages of the trial. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the convictions of all respondents, holding that the in camera discussion with the juror violated respondents’ rights under Rule 43 and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 721 F. 2d 672 (1983).
The Court of Appeals held that all four respondents had due process and Rule 43 rights to be personally present at the in camera discussion, and these rights were substantial enough to be noticed as plain error on appeal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), notwithstanding respondents’ failure to preserve the issue by raising it in the District Court. Although the juror was only worried about Gagnon’s conduct, the Court of Appeals held that the juror’s potential prejudice against Gagnon might harm all respondents because they were joint actors charged and tried together for conspiracy.
The court stated that it could find nothing in the record to “conclusively determine” that respondents waived their Rule 43 rights. The Court of Appeals found “no indication of whether Gagnon or the other defendants expressly or impliedly implicated their willingness to be absent from the conference.” 721 F. 2d, at 677. That no objection was made to holding the conference without respondents was, to the court, irrelevant on the question of voluntary absence under Rule 43. Because the court found no waiver of the Rule 43 right to be present, it stated that a fortiori it could not conclude that respondents had made an intentional and knowing relinquishment of their due process right to be present. Ibid., citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938). Finally, the court held that the harmless-error rule did not excuse the errors committed by the District Court.
We think it clear that respondents’ rights under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause were not violated by the in camera discussion with the juror. “[T]he mere occurrence of an ex parte conversation between a trial judge and a juror does not constitute a deprivation of any constitutional right. The defense has no constitutional right to be present at every interaction between a judge and a juror, nor is there a constitutional right to have a court reporter transcribe every such communication.” Rushen v. Spain, 464 U. S. 114, 125-126 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).
The constitutional right to presence is rooted to a large extent in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, e. g., Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337 (1970), but we have recognized that this right is protected by the Due Process Clause in some situations where the defendant is not actually confronting witnesses or evidence against him. In Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97 (1934), the Court explained that a defendant has a due process right to be present at a proceeding “whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge. . . . [T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.” Id., at 105-106, 108; see also Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806, 819, n. 15 (1975). The Court also cautioned in Snyder that the exclusion of a defendant from a trial proceeding should be considered in light of the whole record. 291 U. S., at 115.
In this case the presence of the four respondents and their four trial counsel at the in camera discussion was not required to ensure fundamental fairness or a “reasonably substantial . . . opportunity to defend against the charge.” See Snyder, supra. The encounter between the judge, the juror, and Gagnon’s lawyer was a short interlude in a complex trial; the conference was not the sort of event which every defendant had a right personally to attend under the Fifth Amendment. Respondents could have done nothing had they been at the conference, nor would they have gained anything by attending. Id., at 108. Indeed, the presence of Gagnon and the other respondents, their four counsel, and the prosecutor could have been counterproductive. Juror Graham had quietly expressed some concern about the purposes of Gagnon’s sketching, and the District Judge sought to explain the situation to the juror. The Fifth Amendment does not require that all the parties be present when the judge inquires into such a minor occurrence.
The Court of Appeals also held that the conference with the juror was a “stage of the trial” at which Gagnon’s presence was guaranteed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43. We assume for the purposes of this opinion that the Court of Appeals was correct in this regard. We hold, however, that the court erred in concluding that respondents had not waived their rights under Rule 43 to be present at the conference with the juror.
The Court of Appeals found the record insufficient to show a valid waiver of respondents’ rights under Rule 43 because there was no proof that respondents expressly or impliedly indicated their willingness to be absent from the conference. The record shows, however, that the District Judge, in open court, announced her intention to speak with the juror in chambers, and then called a recess. The in camera discussion took place during the recess, and trial resumed shortly thereafter with no change in the jury. Respondents neither then nor later in the course of the trial asserted any Rule 43 rights they may have had to attend this conference. Respondents did not request to attend the conference at any time. No objections of any sort were lodged, either before or after the conference. Respondents did not even make any post-trial motions, although post-trial hearings may often resolve this sort of claim. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 33; Rushen, supra, at 119-120, citing Smith v. Phillips, 455 U. S. 209, 218-219 (1982); Remmer v. United States, 347 U. S. 227, 230 (1954). We disagree with the Court of Appeals that failure to object is irrelevant to whether a defendant has voluntarily absented himself under Rule 43 from an in camera conference of which he is aware. The district court need not get an express “on the record” waiver from the defendant for every trial conference which a defendant may have a right to attend. As we have noted previously, “[t]here is scarcely a lengthy trial in which one or more jurors does not have occasion to speak to the trial judge about something, whether it relates to a matter of personal comfort or to some aspect of the trial.” Rushen, supra, at 118. A defendant knowing of such a discussion must assert whatever right he may have under Rule 43 to be present.
Our holding today is in accord with our prior cases and is also consistent with the approach taken by many Courts of Appeals. In Taylor v. United States, 414 U. S. 17 (1973), the defendant did not return to the courthouse after the first morning of trial. The trial continued in his absence, resulting in guilty verdicts. After his later arrest and sentencing the defendant claimed that he was denied a right to be present at trial under Rule 43 because mere voluntary absence was not an effective waiver of that right. We rejected this claim, id., at 19-20, and held that the defendant need not be expressly warned of rights under Rule 43. Nor did we require any type of waiver to exist on the record; the defendant’s failure to assert his right was an adequate waiver. Similarly, respondents’ total failure to assert their rights to attend the conference with the juror sufficed to waive their rights under Rule 43.
This analysis comports both with the language of Rule 43 and with the everyday practicalities of conducting a trial. If a defendant is entitled under Rule 43 to attend certain “stages of the trial” which do not take place in open court, the defendant or his counsel must assert that right at the time; they may not claim it for the first time on appeal from a sentence entered on a jury’s verdict of “guilty.” Rule 43(b) states that “the defendant shall be considered to have waived his right to be present whenever a defendant, initially present.. . voluntarily absents himself. . . .” See also Advisory Committee Notes on Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 43, 18 U. S. C. App., p. 646. Respondents knew the District Judge was holding a conference with the juror and with Gagnon’s attorney, yet neither they nor their attorney made any effort to attend. Timely invocation of a Rule 43 right could at least have apprised the District Court of the claim, and very likely enabled it to accommodate a meritorious claim in whole or in part. Unlike the Court of Appeals, we find nothing in Rule 43 which requires that latter-day protests of the District Court’s action with respect to a relatively minor incident be sustained, and the case tried anew. We hold that failure by a criminal defendant to invoke his right to be present under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 at a conference which he knows is taking place between the judge and a juror in chambers constitutes a valid waiver of that right. The petition for certiorari and respondents’ motion to supplement the record are granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Rule 43 provides:
“(a) Presence Required. The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at the time of the plea, at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by this rule.
“(b) Continued Presence Not Required. The further progress of the trial to and including the return of the verdict shall not be prevented and the defendant shall be considered to have waived his right to be present whenever a defendant, initially present,
“(1) voluntarily absents himself after the trial has commenced (whether or not he has been informed by the court of his obligation to remain during the trial), or
“(2) after being warned by the court that disruptive conduct will cause him to be removed from the courtroom, persists in conduct which is such as to justify his being excluded from the courtroom.
“(c) Presence Not Required. A defendant need not be present in the following situations:
“(1) A corporation may appear by counsel for all purposes.
“(2) In prosecutions for offenses punishable by fine or by imprisonment for not more than one year or both, the court, with the written consent of the defendant, may permit arraignment, plea, trial, and imposition of sentence in the defendant’s absence.
“(3) At a conference or argument upon a question of law.
“(4) At a reduction of sentence under Rule 35.”
See, e. g., United States v. Washington, 227 U. S. App. D. C. 184, 191-193, 705 F. 2d 489, 496-498 (1983); United States v. Provenzano, 620 F. 2d 985, 997-998 (CA3), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 899 (1980); United States v. Bufalino, 576 F. 2d 446, 450-451 (CA2), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 928 (1978); United States v. Brown, 571 F. 2d 980, 987 (CA6 1978).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Last Term, we amended Rule 39 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States to add the following:
“39.8. If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary-writ, as the case may be, is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”
Because in forma pauperis petitioners lack the financial disincentives — filing fees and attorney’s fees — that help to deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions, we felt such a Rule change was necessary to provide us some control over the informa pawperis docket. In ordering the amendment, we sought to discourage frivolous and malicious in forma pauperis filings, “particularly [from] those few persons whose filings are repetitive with the obvious effect of burdening the office of the Clerk and other members of the Court staff.” In re Amendment to Rule 39, 500 U. S. 13 (1991).
Today, we invoke Rule 39.8 for the first time, and deny in forma pauperis status to petitioners Vladimir Zatko and James L. Martin. We do not do so casually, however. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis only with respect to two petitioners who have repeatedly abused the integrity of our process through frequent frivolous filings. Over the last 10 years, Zatko has filed 73 petitions in this Court; 34 of those filings have come within the last 2 years. Martin has been only slightly less prolific over the same 10-year period and has filed over 45 petitions, 15 of them within the last 2 years. In each of their filings up to this point, we have permitted Zatko and Martin to proceed informa pauperis, and we have denied their petitions without recorded dissent. However, this Court’s goal of fairly dispensing justice “is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests” such as these. In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177, 179-180 (1991). We conclude that the pattern of repetitious filing on the part of Zatko and Martin has resulted in an extreme abuse of the system. In the hope that our action will deter future similar frivolous practices, we deny Zatko and Martin leave to proceed in forma pauperis in these cases.
The dissent complains that, by invoking this Rule against Zatko and Martin, we appear to ignore our duty to provide equal access to justice for both the rich and the poor. The message we hope to send is quite the opposite, however. In order to advance the interests of justice, the Court’s general practice is to waive all filing fees and costs for indigent individuals, whether or not the petitions those individuals file are frivolous. As the dissent recognizes, for example, well over half of the numerous in forma pauperis petitions filed since the beginning of this Term are best characterized as frivolous. It is important to observe that we have not applied Rule 39.8 to those frivolous petitions, although the Rule might technically apply to them. Instead, we have denied those petitions in the usual manner, underscoring our commitment to hearing the claims, however meritless, of the poor. But “[i]t is vital that the right to file in forma pau-peris not be incumbered by those who would abuse the integrity of our process by frivolous filings.” In re Amendment to Rule 39, supra, at 13. For that reason we take the limited step of censuring two petitioners who are unique — not merely among those who seek to file informa pauperis, but also among those who have paid the required filing fees— because they have repeatedly made totally frivolous demands on the Court’s limited' resources.
To discourage abusive tactics that actually hinder us from providing equal access to justice for all, we therefore deny leave to proceed informa pauperis in these cases, pursuant to Rule 39.8. Accordingly, petitioners are allowed until November 25, 1991, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court. Future similar filings from these petitioners will merit additional measures.
It is so ordered.
Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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, except as to Part II-D.
We are called upon to decide whether in the circumstances of this case an in-court identification of the accused by the victim of a crime should be suppressed as the fruit of the defendant’s unlawful arrest.
I
On the morning of January 3, 1974, a woman was accosted and robbed at gunpoint by a young man in the women’s restroom on the grounds of the Washington Monument. Her assailant, peering at her through a 4-inch crack between the wall and the door of the stall she occupied, asked for $10 and demanded that he be let into the stall. When the woman refused, the robber pointed a pistol over the top of the door and repeated his ultimatum. The victim then surrendered the money, but the youth demanded an additional $10. When the woman opened her purse and showed her assailant that she had no more cash, he gained entry to her stall and made sexual advances upon her. She tried to resist and pleaded with him to leave. He eventually did, warning his victim that he would shoot her if she did not wait at least 20 minutes before following him out of the restroom. The woman complied, and upon leaving the restroom 20 minutes later, immediately reported the incident to the police.
On January 6, two other women were assaulted and robbed in a similar episode in the same restroom. A young man threatened the women with a broken bottle, forced them to hand over $20, and then departed, again cautioning his victims not to leave for 20 minutes. The description of the robber given to the police by these women matched that given by the first victim: All three described their assailant as a young black male, 15-18 years old, approximately 5'5" to 5'8" tall, slender in build, with a very dark complexion and smooth skin.
Three days later, on January 9, Officer David Rayfield of the United States Park Police observed respondent in the area of the Washington Monument concession stand and restrooms. Aware of the robberies of the previous week and noting respondent’s resemblance to the police “lookout” that described the perpetrator, the officer and his partner approached respondent. Respondent gave the officers his name and said that he was 16 years old. When asked why he was not in school, respondent replied that he had just “walked away from school.” The officers informed respondent of his likeness to the suspect’s description, but there was no further questioning about those events. Respondent was allowed to leave, and the officers watched as he entered the nearby restrooms.
While respondent was still inside, Officer Rayfield saw and spoke to James Dickens, a tour guide who had previously reported having seen a young man hanging around the area of the Monument on the day of the January 3d robbery. In response to the officer’s request to observe respondent as he left the restroom, Dickens tentatively identified him as the individual he had seen on the day of the robbery.
On the basis of this additional information, the officers again approached respondent and detained him. Detective Earl Ore, the investigator assigned to the robberies, was immediately summoned. Upon his arrival some 10 or 15 minutes later, Detective Ore attempted to take a Polaroid photograph of respondent, but the inclement weather conditions frustrated his several efforts to produce a picture suitable for display to the robbery victims. Respondent was therefore taken into custody, ostensibly because he was a suspected truant. He was then transported to Park Police headquarters, where the police briefly questioned him, obtained the desired photograph, telephoned his school, and released him. Respondent was never formally arrested or charged with any offense, and his detention at the station lasted no more than an hour.
On the following day, January 10, the police showed the victim of the first robbery an array of eight photographs, including one of respondent. Although she had previously viewed over 100 pictures of possible suspects without identifying any of them as her assailant, she immediately selected respondent’s photograph as that of the man who had robbed her. On January 13, one of the other victims made a similar identification. Respondent was again taken into custody, and at a court-ordered lineup held on January 21, he was positively identified by the two women who had made the photographic identifications.
The grand jury returned an indictment against respondent on February 22, 1974, charging him with two counts of armed robbery, two counts of robbery, one count of attempted armed robbery, and three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon. Respondent filed a pretrial motion to suppress all identification testimony, contending that his detention on the truancy charges had been merely a pretext to allow the police to obtain evidence for the robbery investigation. After hearing extensive testimony from the three victims, the police officers, and respondent, the trial court found that the respondent’s detention at Park Police headquarters on January 9 constituted an arrest without probable cause. Accordingly, the court ruled that the products of that arrest — the photographic and lineup identifications — could not be introduced at trial. But the judge concluded that the victims’ ability to identify respondent in court was based upon independent recollection untainted by the intervening identifications, and therefore held such testimony admissible. At trial, all three victims identified respondent as their assailant. On April 23, the jury convicted him of armed robbery of the first victim, but returned verdicts of not guilty on all other charges. Respondent was sentenced to four years’ probation under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U. S. C. § 5010 (a).
On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed respondent’s conviction and ordered the suppression of the first robbery victim’s in-court identification. 389 A. 2d 277 (1978). The court viewed its decision to be a wholly conventional application of the familiar “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920). After upholding the trial court’s finding that respondent was detained without probable cause — a determination that is not challenged in this Court — the Court of Appeals turned to consideration of what evidentiary consequences ought to flow from that Fourth Amendment violation. In deciding whether the in-court identification should have been suppressed, the court observed that the analysis must focus on whether the evidence was obtained by official “exploitation” of the “primary illegality” within the meaning of Wong Sun, supra, and that the principal issue was whether the unlawful police behavior bore a causal relationship to the acquisition of the challenged testimony. The court answered that question in the affirmative, reasoning that but for respondent’s unlawful arrest, the police would not have obtained the photograph that led to his subsequent identification by the complaining witnesses and, ultimately, prosecution of the case. Satisfied that the in-court identification was thus at least indirectly the product of official misconduct, the court then considered whether any of three commonly advanced exceptions to the exclusionary rule — the “independent source,” “inevitable discovery,” or “attentuation” doctrines — nonetheless justified its admission. Finding these exceptions inapplicable, the Court of Appeals concluded that, the in-court identification testimony should have been excluded as a product of the violation of respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights. We granted certiorari. 440 U. S. 907 (1979). We reverse.
II
Wong Sun, supra, articulated the guiding principle for determining whether evidence derivatively obtained from a violation of the Fourth Amendment is admissible against the accused at trial: “The exclusionary prohibition extends as well to the indirect as the direct products of such invasions.” 371 U. S., at 484. See Silverthome Lumber Co. v. United States, supra; Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914). As subsequent cases have confirmed, the exclusionary sanction applies to any “fruits” of a constitutional violation — whether such evidence be tangible, physical material actually seized in an illegal search, items observed or words overheard in the course of the unlawful activity, or confessions or statements of the accused obtained during an illegal arrest and detention.
In the typical “fruit of the poisonous tree” case, however, the challenged evidence was acquired by the police after some initial Fourth Amendment violation, and the question before the court is whether the chain of causation proceeding from the unlawful conduct has become so attenuated or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance so as to remove the “taint” imposed upon that evidence by the original illegality. Thus most cases begin with the premise that the challenged evidence is in some sense the product of illegal governmental activity. It is the Court of Appeals’ application of that premise to the facts of this case that we find erroneous.
A ,victim’s in-court identification of the accused has three distinct elements. First, the victim is present at trial to testify as to what transpired between her and the offender, and to identify the defendant as the culprit. Second, the victim possesses knowledge of and the ability to reconstruct the prior criminal occurrence and to identify the defendant from her observations of him at the time of the crime. And third, the defendant is also physically present in the courtroom, so that the victim can observe him and compare his appearance to that of the offender. In the present case, it is our conclusion that none of these three elements “has been come at by exploitation” of the violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Wong Sun, supra, at 488.
A
In this case, the robbery victim’s presence in the courtroom at respondent’s trial was surely not the product of any police misconduct. She had notified the authorities immediately after the attack and had given them a full description of her assailant. The very next day, she went to the police station to view photographs of possible suspects, and she voluntarily assisted the police in their investigation at all times. Thus this is not a case in which the witness’ identity was discovered or her cooperation secured only as a result of an unlawful search or arrest of the accused. Here the victim’s identity was known long before there was any official misconduct, and her presence in court is thus not traceable to any Fourth Amendment violation.
B
Nor did the illegal arrest infect the victim’s ability to give accurate identification testimony. Based upon her observations at the time of the robbery, the victim constructed a mental image of her assailant. At trial, she retrieved this mnemonic representation, compared it to the figure of the defendant, and positively identified him as the robber. No part of this process was affected by respondent’s illegal arrest. In the language of the “time-worn metaphor” of the poisonous tree, Harrison v. United States, 392 U. S. 219, 222 (1968), the toxin in this case was injected only after the evidentiary bud had blossomed; the fruit served at trial was not poisoned.
This is not to say that the intervening photographic and lineup identifications — both of which are conceded to be suppressible fruits of the Fourth Amendment violation — could not under some circumstances affect the reliability of the in-court identification and render it inadmissible as well. Indeed, given the vagaries of human memory and the inherent suggestibility of many identification procedures, just the opposite may be true. But in the present case the trial court expressly found that the witness’ courtroom identification rested on an independent recollection of her initial encounter with the assailant, uninfluenced by the pretrial identifications, and this determination finds ample support in the record. In short, the victim’s capacity to identify her assailant in court neither resulted from nor was biased by the unlawful police conduct committed long after she had developed that capacity.
c
Insofar as respondent challenges his own presence at trial, he cannot claim immunity from prosecution simply because his appearance in court was precipitated by an unlawful arrest. An illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as a bar to subsequent prosecution, nor as a defense to a valid conviction. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 119 (1975); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U. S. 519 (1952); Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436 (1886). The exclusionary principle of Wong Sun and Silverthorne Lumber Co. delimits what proof the Government may offer against the accused at trial, closing the courtroom door to evidence secured by official lawlessness. Respondent is not himself a suppressible “fruit,” and the illegality of his detention cannot deprive the Government of the opportunity to prove his guilt through the introduction of evidence wholly untainted by the police misconduct.
D
Respondent argues, however, that in one respect his corpus is itself a species of “evidence.” When the victim singles out respondent and declares, “That’s the man who robbed me,” his physiognomy becomes something of evidentary value, much like a photograph showing respondent at the scene of the crime. And, as with, the introduction of such a photograph, he contends that the crucial inquiry for Fourth Amendment purposes is whether that evidence has become available only as a result of official misconduct. We read the Court of Appeals’ opinion as essentially adopting this analysis to support its suppression order. See 389 A. 2d, at 285-287.
We need not decide whether respondent’s person should be considered evidence, and therefore a possible “fruit” of police misconduct. For in this case the record plainly discloses that prior to his illegal arrest, the police both knew respondent’s identity and had some basis to suspect his involvement in the very crimes with which he was charged. Moreover, before they approached respondent, the police had already obtained access to the “evidence” that implicated him in the robberies, i. e., the mnemonic representations of the criminal retained by the victims and related to the police in the form of their agreement upon his description. In short, the Fourth Amendment violation in this case yielded nothing of evidentiary value that the police did not already have in their grasp. Rather, respondent’s unlawful arrest served merely to link together two extant ingredients in his identification. The exclusionary rule enjoins the Government from benefiting from evidence it has unlawfully obtained; it does not reach backward to taint information that was in official hands prior to any illegality.
Accordingly, this case is very different from one like Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969), in which the defendant’s identity and connection to the illicit activity were only first discovered through an illegal arrest or search. In that case, the defendant’s fingerprints were ordered suppressed as the fruits of an unlawful detention. A woman had been raped in her home, and during the next 10 days, the local police rounded up scores of black youths, randomly stopping, interrogating, and fingerprinting them. Davis’ prints were discovered to match a set found at the scene of the crime, and on that basis he was arrested and convicted. Had it not been for Davis’ illegal detention, however, his prints would not have been obtained and he would never have become a suspect.' Here, in contrast, the robbery investigation had already focused on respondent, and the police had independent reasonable grounds to suspect his culpability.
We find Bynum v. United States, 104 U. S. App. D. C. 368, 262 F. 2d 465 (1958), cited with approval in Davis, supra, at 724, helpful in our analysis as well. In Bynum, the defendant voluntarily came down to the police station to look for his brother, who had been arrested earlier that day while driving an auto sought in connection with a robbery. After telling one of the officers that he owned the car, Bynum was arrested and fingerprinted. Those prints were later found to match a set at the scene of the robbery, and Bynum was convicted based in part on that evidence. The Court of Appeals held that the police lacked probable cause at the time of Bynum’s arrest, and it ordered the prints suppressed as “something of evidentiary value which the public authorities have caused an arrested person to yield to them during illegal detention.” 104 U. S. App. D. C., at 370, 262 F. 2d, at 467. As this Court noted in Davis, however, 394 U. S., at 725-726, n. 4, Bynum was subsequently reindicted for the same offense, and the Government on retrial introduced an older set of his fingerprints, taken from an FBI file, that were in no' way connected with his unlawful arrest. The Court of Appeals affirmed that conviction, holding that the fingerprint identification made on the basis of information already in the FBI’s possession was not tainted by the subsequent illegality and was therefore admissible. Bynum v. United States, 107 U. S. App. D. C. 109, 274 F. 2d 767 (1960).
The parallels between Bynum and this case are apparent: The pretrial identification obtained through use of the photograph taken during respondent’s illegal detention cannot be introduced; but the in-court identification is admissible, even if respondent’s argument be accepted, because the police’s knowledge of respondent’s identity and the victim’s independent recollections of him both antedated the unlawful arrest and were thus untainted by the constitutional violation. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Officer Rayfield testified that his suspicions were further aroused both by respondent’s presence on the almost deserted park grounds and by his apparently aimless meanderings around the restroom and concessions area.
Tr. 52. References are to the transcript of the suppression hearing and trial held on April 22 and 23, 1974, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
The third victim did not review the photographic array, nor did she attend the subsequent lineup.
See D. C. Code §§ 22-502, 22-2901, and 22-3202 (1973).
The suppression hearing produced conflicting testimony as to the reasons for the attempt to photograph respondent. Officer Rayfield asserted that respondent was processed as a routine juvenile truant, a procedure that involves photographing the suspect and then calling his school and home to determine whether he is in fact truant. Tr. 53-54. Rayfield did acknowledge, however, that he had some suspicion that respondent was the robber described in the police description. Id., at 55, 57. Similarly, Detective Ore, while maintaining that respondent was apprehended and taken down to Park Police headquarters as a suspected truant, id., at 61, 63, admitted that his intent in trying to photograph him was to obtain a picture that could be shown to the complaining witnesses. Id., at 59.
The Government does not now attempt to justify respondent’s detention on the truancy charge, nor did it raise that argument in the court below. The Court of Appeals found that the procedures followed in respondent’s case did not conform to the typical truancy practices described by the police and that the officers never even superficially pursued the truancy matter. By the same token, the court expressly disavowed the existence of a “sham” or “pretext” arrest, and it analyzed respondent’s apprehension as a traditional arrest for armed robbery and assault without probable cause. 389 A. 2d 277, 299-300, n. 32 (DC 1978).
Because respondent was acquitted of all charges in connection with the robberies of January 6, the only issue raised on his appeal was the admissibility of the first robbery victim’s in-court identification.
On February 16, 1977, a division of the Court of Appeals originally affirmed respondent’s conviction, 369 A. 2d 1063. Three months later, however, the full court granted respondent’s motion for rehearing and vacated its earlier judgment. Record 356.
See Brief for United States 5, n. 4.
“We need not hold that all evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a ease is 'whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ Maguire, Evidence of Guilt, 221 (1959).” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S., at 487-488.
“[T]he unlawful arrest produced photographs which were shown to the complaining witnesses who, as a result, identified [respondent); this resulted in his reapprehension, which yielded a court-ordered lineup identification and, eventually, in-court identification testimony during prosecution of the case.” 389 A. 2d, at 289.
See Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341 (1939) (attenuation); Silverthome Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 392 (1920) (independent source); United States ex rel. Owens v. Twomey, 508 F. 2d 858, 865 (CA7 1974) (inevitable discovery).
E. g., Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560 (1971); Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40 (1968); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89 (1964).
E. g., United States v. Giordano, 416 U. S. 505 (1974).; see Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 (1961); McGinnis v. United States, 227 F. 2d 598 (CA1 1955).
E. g., Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200 (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590 (1975).
See generally Ruffin, Out on a Limb of the Poisonous Tree: The Tainted Witness, 15 UCLA L. Rev. 32 (1967).
At oral argument, the Government compared the witness’ mental image to an undeveloped photograph of the robber that is given to the police immediately after the crime, but which becomes visible only at the trial. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11-12. Although this analogy may not comport precisely with current psychological theories of perception, see, e. g., Buckout, Eyewitness Testimony, Scientific American 23 (Dec. 1974), it is apt for purposes of analysis.
See, e. g., P. Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases 40-64 (1965); Note,. Did Your Eyes Deceive You? Expert Psychological Testimony on the Unreliability of Eyewitness Identification, 29 Stan. L. Rev. 969, 974-989 (1977).
United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967), enumerated several factors for consideration in applying the “independent origins” test. Id., at 241. Cf. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U. S. 98 (1977); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 (1972). We attach particular significance to the following circumstances which support the trial court’s determination in this case: the victim viewed her assailant at close range for a period of 5-10 minutes under excellent lighting conditions and with no distractions, Tr. 4, 7, 111; respondent closely matched the description given by the victim immediately after the robbery, id., at 52, 59; the victim failed to identify anyone other than respondent, id., at 8, but twice selected respondent without hesitation in nonsuggestive pretrial identification procedures, id., at 9-11; and only a week had passed between the victim’s initial observation of respondent and her first identification of him, id., at 8-9.
Our reliance on the fact that the witness twice identified respondent in out-of-court confrontations is not intended to assign any independent evidentiary value to those identifications for to do so would undermine the exclusionary rule’s objectives in denying the Government the benefit of any evidence wrongfully obtained. Rather, the accurate pretrial identifications assume significance only to the extent that they indicate that the witness’ ability to identify respondent antedated any police misconduct, and hence that her in-court identification had an “independent source.”
Respondent contends that the “independent source” test of United States v. Wade, supra, and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293 (1967), although derived from an identical formulation in Wong Sun, see 388 U. S., at 241, seeks only to determine whether the in-court identification is sufficiently reliable to satisfy due process, and is thus inapplicable in the context of this Fourth Amendment violation. We agree that a satisfactory resolution of the reliability issue does not provide a complete answer to the considerations underlying Wong Sun, but note only that in the present case both concerns are met.
Cf. United States v. Blue, 384 U. S. 251, 255 (1966):
“Our numerous precedents ordering the exclusion of such illegally obtained evidence assume implicitly that the remedy does not extend to barring the prosecution altogether. So drastic a step might advance marginally some of the ends served by exclusionary rules, but it would also increase to an intolerable degree interference with the public interest in having the guilty brought to book.”
In some cases, of course, prosecution may effectively be foreclosed by the absence of the challenged evidence. But this contemplated consequence is the product of the exclusion of specific evidence tainted by the Fourth Amendment violation and is not the result of a complete bar to prosecution.
This part is joined only by Mb. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Stevens.
Cf. Stevenson v. Mathews, 529 F. 2d 61, 63 (CA7 1976).
Thus we are not called upon in this ease to hypothesize about whether routine investigatory procedures would eventually have led the police to discover respondent’s culpability. His involvement in the robberies was already suspected, and no new evidence was acquired through the violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 (Speedy Trial Act or Act), 18 U. S. C. § 3161 et seq., requires that a criminal defendant’s trial commence within 70 days after he is charged or makes an initial appearance, whichever is later, see § 3161(c)(1), and entitles him to dismissal of the charges if that deadline is not met, § 3162(a)(2). The Act, however, excludes from the 70-day period delays due to certain enumerated events. § 3161(h) (2006 ed. and Supp. II). As relevant here, “delay resulting from... proceedings concerning the defendant” is automatically excludable from a Speedy Trial Act calculation. § 3161(h)(1) (hereinafter subsection (h)(1)). In addition, “delay resulting from a continuance” granted by the district court may be excluded if the district court makes the findings required by § 3161(h)(7) (2006 ed., Supp. II) (hereinafter subsection (h)(7)).
This case requires us to decide the narrow question whether time granted to a party to prepare pretrial motions is automatically excludable from the Act’s 70-day limit under subsection (h)(1), or whether such time may be excluded only if a court makes case-specific findings under subsection (h)(7). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that pretrial motion preparation time is automatically ex-cludable under subsection (h)(1). 534 F. 3d 893, 898 (2008). We granted certiorari, 556 U. S. 1181 (2009), and now reverse.
I
A
On August 2,2006, police officers surveilling an apartment building for drug activity saw petitioner and his girlfriend enter a car parked in front of the building and drive away. After observing petitioner commit several traffic violations, the officers stopped the vehicle. They approached the car and noticed two small bags of cocaine on petitioner’s lap. After the officers read petitioner his Miranda warnings, petitioner made inculpatory statements. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Petitioner denied any association with the apartment building where the car had been parked, but his girlfriend admitted that she lived there and consented to a search of her residence. The officers who conducted the search uncovered several items that belonged to petitioner, including an identification card, cocaine, three firearms, ammunition, and a bulletproof vest. The police arrested petitioner the next day.
On August 24, a grand jury indicted petitioner for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1), and for knowing and intentional possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 841(a)(1). The August 24 indictment started the Speedy Trial Act’s 70-day clock. See 18 U. S. C. § 3161(c)(1). After petitioner’s arraignment on September 1, a Magistrate Judge entered a scheduling order requiring, inter alia, that the parties file pretrial motions by September 13.
On September 7, petitioner filed a motion to extend the deadline to file pretrial motions from September 13 to September 21. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion and extended the deadline by an extra four days beyond petitioner’s request, to September 25. On September 25, however, petitioner filed a "Waiver of Pretrial Motions” advising the court that he did not wish to file any pretrial motions.
On October 4, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing to consider petitioner’s “waiver,” at which petitioner confirmed that he wished to waive his right to file pretrial motions. After a colloquy, the Magistrate Judge found that petitioner’s waiver was voluntary and intelligent.
Over the next three months, petitioner’s trial was delayed for several reasons. Though these delays are not directly relevant to the question presented here, we recount them to explain the full context in which that question arises. On November 8, petitioner moved to continue the trial date, stating that his counsel needed additional time to prepare for trial. The District Court granted the motion and reset the trial for December 18.
The parties then met informally and prepared a plea agreement, which they provided to the court. The District Court scheduled a change of plea hearing for December 20. At the hearing, however, petitioner declined to implement the agreement and requested a new attorney. The District Court rescheduled the trial for February 26, 2007, granted petitioner’s attorney’s subsequent motion to withdraw, and appointed new counsel.
On February 19, 2007 — 179 days after petitioner was indicted — petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the Act’s 70-day limit had elapsed. The District Court denied the motion. In calculating how many of the 179 days counted toward the 70-day limit, the District Judge excluded the period from September 7 through October 4 as “within the extension of time granted to file pretrial motions.” Order in No. 4:06CR518-SNL (ED Mo.), Doc. 44, p. 2.
In late February, a matter arose in an unrelated case on the District Court’s docket, which required the court to reschedule petitioner’s trial. After obtaining the consent of the parties and finding that a continuance would serve the public interest, the District Court continued petitioner’s trial from February 26 to March 5, 2007. Petitioner’s 2-day trial began on that date. The jury found petitioner guilty on both counts, and the District Court later sentenced him to concurrent 30-year terms of imprisonment.
B
Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentence to the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the denial of his motion to dismiss for a Speedy Trial Act violation. As relevant, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that the time from September 7 (the original deadline for filing pretrial motions) through October 4 (when the trial court held a hearing on petitioner’s decision to waive the right to file pretrial motions) was excludable from the Act’s 70-day limit. Although the District Court did not identify which provision of the Act supported this exclusion, the Court of Appeals held that “pretrial motion preparation time” is automatically excludable under subsection (h)(1) — which covers “delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant”— as long as “the [district] court specifically grants time for that purpose.” 534 F. 3d, at 897. In reaching this conclusion, the Eighth Cireuit joined seven other Courts of Appeals that interpret subsection (h)(1) the same way. Two Courts of Appeals, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, interpret subsection (h)(1) differently, holding that time for preparing pretrial motions is outside subsection (h)(l)’s scope. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict.
II
As noted, the Speedy Trial Act requires that a criminal defendant’s trial commence within 70 days of a defendant’s initial appearance or indictment, but excludes from the 70-day period days lost to certain types of delay. Section 3161(h) specifies the types of delays that are excludable from the calculation. Some of these delays are excludable only if the district court makes certain findings enumerated in the statute. See § 3161(h)(7). Other delays are automatically excludable, i. e., they may be excluded without district court findings. As relevant here, subsection (h)(1) requires the automatic exclusion of “[a]ny period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to” periods of delay resulting from eight enumerated subcategories of proceedings. The Government contends that the time the District Court granted petitioner to prepare his pretrial motions is automatically excludable under subsection (h)(1). We disagree, and conclude that such time may be excluded only when a district court enters appropriate findings under subsection (h)(7).
A
The eight subparagraphs in subsection (h)(1) address the automatic excludability of delay generated for certain enumerated purposes. Thus, we first consider whether the delay at issue in this case is governed by one of these sub-paragraphs. It is.
The delay at issue was granted to allow petitioner sufficient time to file pretrial motions. Subsection (h)(1)(D) (2006 edL, Supp. II) (hereinafter subparagraph (D)) renders automatically excludable “delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion.” Read, as it must be, in the context of subsection (h), this text governs the automatic excludability of delays “resulting” from a specific category of “proceedings concerning the defendant,” namely, proceedings involving pretrial motions. Because the delay at issue here results from a deeision granting time to prepare pretrial motions, if not from a pretrial motion itself (the defendant’s request for additional time), it is governed by subparagraph (D). But that does not make the delay at issue here automatically excludable.
Subparagraph (D) does not subject all pretrial motion-related delay to automatic exclusion. Instead, it renders automatically excludable only the delay that occurs “from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of” the motion. (Emphasis added.) In so doing, the provision communicates Congress' judgment that delay resulting from pretrial motions is automatically excludable, i. e., excludable without district court findings, only from the time a motion is filed through the hearing or disposition point specified in the subparagraph, and that other periods of pretrial motion-related delay are excludable only when accompanied by district court findings.
This limitation is significant because Congress knew how to define the boundaries of an enumerated exclusion broadly when it so desired. Subsection (h)(1)(A) (2006 ed.) (hereinafter subparagraph (A)), for example, provides for the automatic exclusion of “delay resulting from any proceeding, including any examinations, to determine the mental competency or physical capacity of the defendant.” (Emphasis added.) With the word “including,” Congress indicated that other competency-related proceedings besides “examinations” might fall within subparagraph (A)’s automatic exelusion. In subparagraph (D), by contrast, Congress declined to use an expansive or illustrative term such as “including,” and provided instead that only pretrial motion-related delay “from the filing” of a motion to the hearing or disposition point specified in the provision is automatically excludable from the Act’s 70-day limit.
Thus, although the period of delay the Government seeks to exclude in this case results from a proceeding governed by subparagraph (D), that period precedes the first day upon which Congress specified that such delay may be automatically excluded. The result is that the pretrial motion preparation time at issue in this case is not automatically excludable.
B
The foregoing analysis resolves our inquiry into automatic excludability because “[a] specific provision” (here, subparagraph (D)) “controls one[s] of more general application” (here, subsections (h)(1) and (h)(7)). Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U. S. 395, 407 (1991). In arguing that this principle applies, but requires a result different from the one we reach, the dissent (like the Government and several Courts of Appeals) departs from the statute in a manner that underscores the propriety of our approach.
1
There is no question that subparagraph (D) is more specific than the “general” language in subsection (h)(1), post, at 218, 222, or that “[gjeneral language of a statutory provision, although broad enough to include it, will not be held to apply to a matter specifically dealt with in another part of the same enactment,” D. Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. Popkin, 285 U. S. 204, 208 (1932). We part company with the dissent because we conclude that subparagraph (D) governs the period of delay at issue in this case. The dissent does not object to this conclusion on the ground that it is foreclosed by the statute. See post, at 221 (asserting that the delay at issue in this case is “not necessarily” covered by subparagraph (D)). Instead, it joins the Government in asserting that the Act is amenable to another interpretation that would avoid the “strange result” that “petitioner may be entitled to dismissal of the charges against him because his attorney persuaded a Magistrate Judge to give the defense additional time to prepare pretrial motions and thus delayed the commencement of his trial.” Post, at 217. This argument takes aim at an exaggerated target. Because we conclude that the type of delay at issue here is excludable under subsection (h)(7), courts can in future cases easily avoid the result the dissent decries, a result that is not certain even in this case. See infra, at 214-215. And even if dismissal is ultimately required on remand, a desire to avoid this result does not justify reading subsection (h)(1) (and specifically its reference to “other proceedings concerning the defendant”) to permit automatic exclusion of delay resulting from virtually any decision to continue a deadline.
The dissent first argues that the delay in this case is automatically excludable under subsection (h)(1) because the provision's use of the phrase “including but not limited to” shows that subsection (h)(1) permits automatic exclusion of delays beyond those covered by its enumerated subparagraphs. See post, at 219; see also United States v. Oberoi, 547 F. 3d 436, 450 (CA2 2008). This argument confuses the illustrative nature of subsection (h)(l)’s list of categories of excludable delay (each of which is represented by a subparagraph) with the contents of the categories themselves. That the list of categories is illustrative rather than exhaustive in no way undermines our conclusion that a delay that falls within the category of delay addressed by subparagraph (D) is governed by the limits in that subparagraph. The “in-eluding but not limited to” clause would affect our conclusion only if one read it to modify the contents of subparagraph (D) as well as the list itself. As noted, such a reading would violate settled principles of statutory construction because it would ignore the structure and grammar of subsection (h)(1), and in so doing render even the clearest of the sub-paragraphs indeterminate and virtually superfluous. See Gozlon-Peretz, supra, at 410; Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 174 (2001) (“[A] statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Our reading avoids these problems by treating the list as illustrative, but construing each of the eight subparagraphs in (h)(1) to govern, conclusively unless the subparagraph itself indicates otherwise, see, e. g., § 3161(h)(1)(A); supra, at 206-207, the automatic excludability of the delay resulting from the category of proceedings it addresses.
The dissent responds that, even if subparagraph (D)’s limits are conclusive rather than merely illustrative, we should automatically exclude the delay at issue here under subsection (h)(l)’s opening clause, see post, at 218, because it is not “clear” that the delay is governed by the more specific (and restrictive) language in subparagraph (D). Post, at 222. We decline this invitation to use the alleged uncertainty in subparagraph (D)’s scope as a justification for disregarding its limits and instead expanding, through liberal interpretation of subsection (h)(l)’s generic opening clause, what the dissent itself describes as the automatic exclusion “exception]” to the Act’s 70-day period and the Act’s “general rule” requiring “ends-of-justice findings for continuances.” Post, at 227.
On the dissent’s reading of subsection (h)(1), a court could extend by weeks or months, without any finding that the incursion on the Act’s timeliness guarantee is justified, the entire portion of a criminal proceeding for which the Act sets a default limit of 70 days. The problem with this reading is clear: It relies on an interpretation of subsection (h)(1) that admits of no principled, text-based limit on the definition of a “proceeding] concerning the defendant,” and thus threatens the Act’s manifest purpose of ensuring speedy trials by construing the Act’s automatic exclusion exceptions in a manner that could swallow the 70-day rule. This approach is not justified, much less compelled, by the textual ambiguities and legislative history upon which the dissent relies. Nor is it justified by the prospect, however appealing, of reaching a different result in this case. Hence our conclusion that the text and structure of subsection (h)(1) do not permit automatic exclusion of the delay at issue in this case.
2
Our conclusion is further supported by subsection (h)(l)’s context, particularly neighboring subsection (h)(7). Subsection (h)(7) provides that delays “resulting from a continuance granted by any judge” may be excluded, but only if the judge finds that “the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial” and records those findings. In setting forth the statutory factors that justify a continuance under subsection (h)(7), Congress twice recognized the importance of adequate pretrial preparation time. See § 3161(h) (7)(B)(ii) (requiring a district court to consider whether the “unusual” or “complex” nature of a case makes it “unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits” (emphasis added)); §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) (requiring a district court to consider in other cases “[wjhether the failure to grant such a continuance... would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence” (emphasis added)). Our determination that the delay at issue here is not automatically excludable gives full effect to subsection (h)(7), and respects its provisions for excluding certain types of delay only where a district court makes findings justifying the exclusion. Cf. post, at 227 (construing subsection (h)(1) in a manner that could encompass, and govern, delays expressly within subsection (h)(7)’s purview).
3
Finally, our Speedy Trial Act precedents support our reading of subsection (h)(1). We recently explained that the Act serves not only to protect defendants, but also to vindicate the public interest in the swift administration of justice. We thus held that a defendant may not opt out of the Act even if he believes it would be in his interest; “[ajilowing prospective waivers would seriously undermine the Act because there are many cases... in which the prosecution, the defense, and the court would all be happy to opt out of the Act, to the detriment of the public interest.” Zedner v. United States, 547 U. S. 489, 502 (2006).
Courts of Appeals that have read subsection (h)(1) to exclude automatically pretrial motion preparation time have reasoned that their interpretation is necessary to provide defendants adequate time to build their defense. See, e. g., United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 E 2d 902, 913 (per curiam), opinion supplemented on other grounds on rehearing, 881 F. 2d 866 (CA10 1989) (per curiam). Yet these same courts have recognized that reading subsection (h)(1) to exclude all time for preparing pretrial motions would undermine the guarantee of a speedy trial, and thus harm the public interest we have recognized in preserving that guarantee even where one or both parties to a proceeding would be willing to waive it. See Zedner, supra, at 502. To avoid a result so inconsistent with the statute’s purpose — i. e., “to avoid creating a big loophole in the statute,” United States v. Tibboel, 753 F. 2d 608, 610 (CA7 1985) — these courts have found it necessary to craft limitations on the automatic exclusion for pretrial motion preparation time that their interpretation of subsection (h)(1) otherwise would allow. See, e. g., ibid, (stating that pretrial motion preparation time may be automatically excluded under subsection (h)(1) only when “the judge has expressly granted a party time for that purpose” (emphasis added)); Oberoi, 547 F. 3d, at 450 (“This... qualification prevents abuse. Without it, either party ‘could delay trial indefinitely merely by working on pretrial motions right up to the eve of trial’ ”).
The fact that courts reading subsection (h)(1) to exclude preparation time have imposed extratextual limitations on excludability to avoid “creating a big loophole in the statute,” Tibboel, supra, at 610, underscores the extent to which their interpretation — and the dissent’s — strays from the Act’s text and purpose. As noted, subsection (h)(7) expressly accounts for the possibility that a district court would need to delay a trial to give the parties adequate preparation time. An exclusion under subsection (h)(7) is not automatic, however, and requires specific findings. Allowing district courts to exclude automatically such delays would redesign this statutory framework.
C
We also note that some of the Courts of Appeals that have interpreted subsection (h)(1) to exclude automatically pretrial motion preparation time have reasoned that a contrary reading of that provision would lay “a trap for trial judges” by forcing them to risk a Speedy Trial Act violation if they wish to grant a defendant’s request for additional time to prepare a pretrial motion, United States v. Wilson, 835 F. 2d 1440, 1444 (CADC 1987); see also Oberoi, supra, at 450.
We acknowledge that it would be unpalatable to interpret the Speedy Trial Act to “trap” district courts for accommodating a defendant’s request for additional time to prepare pretrial motions, particularly in a case like this. Petitioner instigated all of the pretrial delays except for the final continuance from February 26 to March 5. And the record clearly shows that the Magistrate Judge and the District Court diligently endeavored to accommodate petitioner’s requests — granting his motion for an extension of time to decide whether to file pretrial motions, his motion for a continuance, and his motion for a new attorney and for time to allow this new attorney to become familiar with the ease. Fortunately, we can abide by the limitations Congress imposed on the statutory rights at issue here without interpreting the Act in a manner that would trap trial courts.
For the reasons we explained above, neither subparagraph (D) nor subsection (h)(1) automatically excludes time granted to prepare pretrial motions. This conclusion does not lay a “trap for trial judges” because it limits (in a way the statute requires) only automatic exclusions. In considering any request for delay, whether the exclusion of time will be automatic or not, trial judges always have to devote time to assessing whether the reasons for the delay are justified, given both the statutory and constitutional requirement of speedy trials. Placing these reasons in the record does not add an appreciable burden on these judges. Neither are district courts forced to choose between rejecting a defendant’s request for time to prepare pretrial motions and risking dismissal of the indictment if preparation time delays the trial. Instead, a district court may exclude preparation time under subsection (h)(7) if it grants a continuance for that purpose based on recorded findings “that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” Subsection (h)(7) provides “[m]uch of the Act’s flexibility,” Zedner, 547 U. S., at 498, and gives district courts “discretion — within limits and subject to specific procedures — to accommodate limited delays for case-specific needs,” id., at 499. The statutory scheme thus ensures that district courts may grant necessary pretrial motion preparation time without risking dismissal.
Still, the Government suggests that, in some cases, a district court may fail to make the findings necessary for an exclusion under subsection (h)(7), leading to a windfall gain for a defendant who induces delay beyond the Act’s 70-day limit. Dismissal, however, need not represent a windfall. A district court may dismiss the charges without prejudice, thus allowing the Government to refile charges or reindict the defendant. 18 U. S. C. § 8162(a)(1). In ruling upon a motion to dismiss under the Act, a district court should consider, among other factors, the party responsible for the delay. See ibid. (“In determining whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the [district] court shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter and on the administration of justice” (emphasis added)); see also United States v. Taylor, 487 U. S. 326, 343 (1988) (“Seemingly ignored were the brevity of the delay and the consequential lack of prejudice to respondent, as well as respondent’s own illicit contribution to the delay”).
III
Based on this analysis, we hold that the 28-day period from September 7 through October 4, which includes the additional time granted by the District Court for pretrial motion preparation, is not automatically excludable under subsection (h)(1). The Court of Appeals did not address whether any portion of that time might have been otherwise excludable. Nor did the Government assert in its merits brief that another provision of the Act could support exclusion, presenting the argument that September 25 through October 4 could be excluded separately only in its brief in opposition to certiorari and during oral argument. We therefore do not consider whether any other exclusion would apply to all or part of the 28-day period. Instead, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The excludability of delay “resulting from... proceedings” under subsection (h)(1) is “automatic” in the sense that a district court must exclude such delay from a Speedy Trial Act calculation without any further analysis as to whether the benefit of the delay outweighs its cost. For delays resulting from proceedings under subsection (h)(1), Congress already has determined that the benefit of such delay outweighs its cost to a speedy trial, regardless of the specifics of the case. The word “automatic” serves as a useful shorthand. See, e. g., United States v. Lucky, 569 F. 3d 101, 106 (CA2 2009) (“Some exclusions are automatic. Other exclusions require judicial action” (citation omitted)).
After the Eighth Circuit issued its decision below, Congress passed the Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of 2008,122 Stat. 4291, which made technical changes to the Speedy Trial Act, including the renumbering of several provisions. The amendments did not change the substance of any provision relevant here. Accordingly, in this opinion, including our discussions of the orders and decisions under review, we refer only to the current version of the Act.
In addition, the District Judge excluded the continuance granted on November 9 (resetting the trial for December 18) under § 3161(h)(7)(A) (2006 ed., Supp. II), and excluded the time from November 9 through December 20 as delay resulting from a plea agreement under § 3161(h)(1)(G). He further excluded the time from December 20 through February 26 “as it... resulted from [petitioner’s] election not to implement a plea agreement, and his request to the court to have new counsel appointed for him.” Order in No. 4:06CR518-SNL, Doc. 44, at 8. The judge stated on the record that these continuances were necessary to ensure that “the ends of justice could more properly be served” and “obviously outweighed the best interest of the public and the defendant to a Speedy Trial.” Ibid.
In addition, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order excluding the time from November 9 to, and including, December 18 and from December 20 to, and including, February 23 as delays resulting from continuances under §§3161(h)(7) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), respectively. The Court of Appeals did not address whether to exclude December 19. Nor did it decide whether to exclude the delay from February 23 to March 5, because even if those days were included, "only 58 days passed between [petitionerfs indictment and trial, fewer than the 70 allowed by the Speedy Trial Act.” 534 F. 3d, at 900.
See United States v. Oberoi, 547 F. 3d 436, 448-451 (CA2 2008); 534 F. 3d 898, 897-898 (CA8 2008) (case below); United States v. Mejia, 82 F. 3d 1032, 1035-1036 (CA11 1996); United States v. Lewis, 980 F. 2d 555, 564 (CA9 1992); United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 F. 2d 902, 912-915 (per curiam), opinion supplemented on other grounds on rehearing, 881 F 2d 866 (CA10 1989) (per curiam); United States v. Wilson, 835 F. 2d 1440, 1444-1445 (CADC 1987); United States v. Tibboel, 753 F. 2d 608, 610 (CA7 1985); United States v. Jodoin, 672 F. 2d 232, 237-239 (CA1 1982).
See United States v. Jarrell, 147 F. 3d 315, 317-318 (CA4 1998); United States v. Moran, 998 F. 2d 1368, 1370-1371 (CA6 1993).
The full text of subsection (h)(1) reads as follows:
“(h) The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which an information or an indictment must be filed, or in computing the time within which the trial of any such offense must commence:
“(1) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to—
“(A) delay resulting from any proceeding, including any examinations, to determine the mental competency or physical capacity of the defendant;
“(B) delay resulting from trial with respect to other charges against the defendant;
“(C) delay resulting from any interlocutory appeal;
“(D) delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion;
“(E) delay resulting from any proceeding relating to the transfer of a case or the removal of any defendant from another district under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure;
“(F) delay resulting from transportation of any defendant from another district, or to and from places of examination or hospitalization, except that any time consumed in excess of ten days from the date an order of removal or an order directing such transportation, and the defendant’s arrival at the destination shall be presumed to be unreasonable;
“(G) delay resulting from consideration by the court of a proposed plea agreement to be entered into by the defendant and the attorney for the Government; and
“(H) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty days, during which any proceeding concerning the defendant is actually under advisement by the court.”
See Defendant’s Request for Additional Time To File Pre-trial Motions in No. 4:06CR518-SNL (TCM) (ED Mo.), Doc. 19; Order in No. 4:06CR518-SNL (ED Mo.), Doc. 44 (granting same).
The dissent argues that this conclusion lacks “force” because “[i]t is at least doubtful... that the delay at issue in the present case is delay ‘resulting from [a] pretrial motion.’ ” Post, at 220 (opinion of Auto, J.). According to the dissent, “delay ‘resulting from’ a pretrial motion is delay that occurs as a consequence of such a motion,” which the “type of delay involved in the present case... does not.” Post, at 221 (arguing that the delay in this case instead “occurs as a consequence of the court’s granting of a defense request for an extension of time”).
The dissent’s position, which rests upon a dictionary definition of two isolated words, does not account for the governing statutory context. For the reasons we explain, the text and structure of subsection (h) support our conclusion that subparagraph (D) governs the automatic excludability of delays “resulting from” proceedings involving pretrial motions. As the dissent concedes, defining “resulting from” to mean “as a consequence of” does not foreclose our interpretation. That is because the dissent’s definition of “resulting from” leaves ample room to conclude that the delay at issue here is “a consequence of” the category of proceedings covered by subparagraph (D), whether one views the delay “as a consequence of” a proceeding involving pretrial motions, or “as a consequence of” a pretrial motion itself (the defense request for additional time). At bottom, the dissent’s position is not that our interpretation is foreclosed by the Act; it is that the dissent’s interpretation is preferable. We disagree because the dissent’s interpretation, among other things, fails to account fully for the text and structure of subsection (h)(1) and renders much of subsection (h)(7) a nullity.
This conclusion flows not only from subparagraph (D)’s text, but also from its structure. As noted, subparagraph CD) excludes from the 70-day period “delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion.” In this case, the comma after the first phrase indicates that the second phrase modifies the scope of excludable delay referred to in the first. Thus, subparagraph (D)’s automatic exclusion for delay “resulting from” a pretrial motion is limited to delay that occurs from the filing of the motion through the endpoints identified in the provision.
Whether the defendant actually files a pretrial motion for which he requests additional time is irrelevant to this analysis. Even if he files such a motion, that filing may not be used to bootstrap into the period of automatically excludable delay pre-filing preparation time that subparagraph (D) does not render automatically excludable.
The dissent argues that the relevant “proceeding” in this case is the District Court’s disposition of petitioner’s motion for additional time to file pretrial motions. See post, at 218. If that were correct, any order disposing of a motion — including a pretrial motion under subparagraph (D) — would be a separate “proceeding,” and any resulting delay would be automatically excludable. The dissent’s reading renders superfluous the two provisions in subsection (h)(7) that require findings for the exclusion of time necessary for “adequate preparation for
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants in this case challenge certain computation procedures that the State of Texas uses in its federally assisted welfare program. Believing that neither the Constitution nor the federal welfare statute prohibits the State from adopting these policies, we affirm the judgment of the three-judge court below upholding the state procedures.
I
Appellants are Texas recipients of Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). They brought two class actions, which were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking in-junctive and declaratory relief against state welfare officials. A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281.
The Texas State Constitution provides a ceiling on the amount the State can spend on welfare assistance grants. In order to allocate this fixed pool of welfare money among the numerous individuals with acknowledged need, the State has adopted a system of percentage grants. Under this system, the State first computes the monetary needs of individuals eligible for relief under each of the federally aided categorical assistance programs. Then, since the constitutional ceiling on welfare is insufficient to bring each recipient up to this full standard of need, the State applies a percentage reduction factor in order to arrive at a reduced standard of need in each category that the State can guarantee.
Appellants challenge the constitutionality of applying a lower percentage reduction factor to AFDC than to the other categorical assistance programs. They claim a violation of equal protection because the proportion of AFDC recipients who are black or Mexican-American is higher than the proportion of the aged, blind, or disabled welfare recipients who fall within these minority groups. Appellants claim that the distinction between the programs is not rationally related to the purposes of the Social Security Act, and violates the Fourteenth Amendment for that reason as well. In their original complaint, appellants also argued that any percentage-reduction system violated § 402 (a) (23) of the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, 81 Stat. 898, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (23), which required each State to make certain cost-of-living adjustments to its standard of need.
The three-judge court rejected appellants’ constitutional arguments, finding that the Texas system is neither racially discriminatory nor unconstitutionally arbitrary. The court did, however, accept the statutory claim that Texas’ percentage reductions in the AFDC program violate the congressional command of §402 (a) (23). 304 F. Supp. 1332 (ND Tex. 1969).
Subsequent to that judgment, this Court decided Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397 (1970). Rosado held that, although § 402 (a) (23) required States to make cost-of-living adjustments in their standard-of-need calculations, it did not prohibit use of percentage-reduction systems that limited the amount of welfare assistance actually paid. 397 U. S., at 413. This Court then vacated and remanded the first Jefferson judgment for further proceedings consistent with Rosado. 397 U. S. 821 (1970).
On remand, the District Court entered a new judgment, denying all relief. Then, in a motion to amend the judgment, appellants raised a new statutory claim. They argued for the first time that although a percentage-reduction system may be consistent with the statute, the specific procedures that Texas uses for computing that reduction violate the congressional enactment. The District Court rejected this argument and denied without opinion appellants’ motion to amend the judgment. This appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 then followed, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 404 U. S. 820 (1971).
II
Appellants’ statutory argument relates to the method that the State uses to compute the percentage reduction when the recipient also has some outside income. Texas, like many other States, first applies the percentage-reduction factor to the recipient’s standard of need, thus arriving at a reduced standard of need that the State can guarantee for each recipient within the present budgetary restraints. After computing this reduced standard of need, the State then subtracts any nonexempt income in order to arrive at the level of benefits that the recipient needs in order to reach his reduced standard of need. This is the amount of welfare the recipient is given.
Under an alternative system used by other States, the order of computation is reversed. First, the outside income is subtracted from the standard of need, in order to determine the recipient’s “unmet need.” Then, the percentage-reduction factor is applied to the unmet need, in order to determine the welfare benefits payable.
The two systems of accounting for outside income yield different results. Under the Texas system all welfare recipients with the same needs have the same amount of money available each month, whether or not they have outside income. Since the outside income is applied dollar for dollar to the reduced standard of need, which the welfare department would otherwise pay in full, it does not result in a net improvement in the financial position of the recipient. Under the alternative system, on the other hand, any welfare recipient who also has outside income is in a better financial position because of it. The reason is that the percentage-reduction factor there is applied to the “unmet need,” after the income has been subtracted. Thus, in effect, the income-earning recipient is able to “keep” all his income, while he receives only a percentage of the remainder of his standard of need.
Each of the two systems has certain advantages. Appellants note that under the alternative system there is a financial incentive for welfare recipients to obtain outside income. The Texas computation method eliminates any such financial incentive, so long as the outside income remains less than the recipient’s reduced standard of need. However, since Texas’ pool of available welfare funds is fixed, any increase in benefits paid to the working poor would have to be offset by reductions elsewhere. Thus, if Texas were to switch to the alternative system of recognizing outside income, it would be forced to lower its percentage-reduction factor, in order to keep down its welfare budget. Lowering the percentage would result in less money for those who need the welfare benefits the most — those with no outside income — and the State has been unwilling to do this.
Striking the proper balance between these competing policy considerations is, of course, not the function of this Court. “There is no question that States have considerable latitude in allocating their AFDC resources, since each State is free to set its own standard of need and to determine the level of benefits by the amount of funds it devotes to the program.” King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, 318-319 (1968) (footnotes omitted). So long as the State’s actions are not in violation of any specific provision of the Constitution or the Social Security Act, appellants’ policy arguments must be addressed to a different forum.
Appellants assert, however, that the Texas computation procedures are contrary to § 402 (a) (23):
“(a) A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must
“(23) provide that by July 1, 1969, the amounts used by the State to determine the needs of individuals will have been adjusted to reflect fully changes in living costs since such amounts were established, and any máximums that the State imposes on the amount of aid paid to families will have been proportionately adjusted.”
Recognizing that this statutory language, by its terms, hardly provides much support for their theory, appellants seek to rely on what they perceive to have been the broad congressional purpose in enacting the provision.
In Rosado v. Wyman, supra, the Court reviewed the history of this section and rejected the argument that it had worked any radical shift in the AFDC program. Id., at 414 and n. 17. AFDC has long been referred to as a “scheme of cooperative federalism,” King v. Smith, 392 U. S., at 316, and the Rosado Court dismissed as “adventuresome” any interpretation of § 402 (a) (23) that would deprive the States of their traditional discretion to set the levels of payments. 397 U. S., at 414-415 and n. 17. Instead, the statute was meant to require the States to make cost-of-living adjustments to their standards of need, thereby serving “two broad purposes”:
“First, to require States to face up realistically to the magnitude of the public assistance requirement and lay bare the extent to which their programs fall short of fulfilling actual need; second, to prod the States to apportion their payments on a more equitable basis,” Id., at 412-413.
Texas has complied with these two requirements. Effective May 1, 1969, the standard of need for AFDC recipients was raised 11% to reflect the rise in the cost of living, and the State shifted from a maximum-grant system to its present percentage-reduction system. In this way, the State has fairly recognized and exposed the precise level of unmet need, and by using a percentage-reduction system it has attempted to apportion the State’s limited benefits more equitably.
Although Texas has thus responded to the “two broad purposes” of §402 (a) (23), appellants argue that Congress also intended that statute to increase the total number of recipients of AFDC, so that more people would qualify for the subsidiary benefits that are dependent on receipt of AFDC cash assistance. The Texas computation procedures are thought objectionable since they do not increase the welfare rolls to quite the same extent as would the alternative method of recognizing outside income.
We do not agree that Congress intended § 402 (a) (23) to invalidate any state computation procedures that do not absolutely maximize individual eligibility for subsidiary benefits. The cost-of-living increase that Congress mandated would, of course, generally tend to increase eligibility, but there is nothing in the legislative history indicating that this was part of the statutory purpose. Indeed, at the same time Congress enacted § 402 (a) (23) it included another section designed to induce States to reduce the number of individuals eligible for the AFDC program. Thus, what little legislative history there is on the point, see Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S., at 409-412, tends to undercut appellants’ theory. See Lampton v. Bonin, 304 F. Supp. 1384, 1391-1392 (ED La. 1969) (Cassibry, J., dissenting). See generally Note, 58 Geo. L. J. 591 (1970).
Appellants also argue that the Texas system should be held invalid because the alternative computation method results in greater work incentives for welfare recipients. The history and purpose of the Social Security Act do indicate Congress’ desire to help those on welfare become self-sustaining. Indeed, Congress has specifically mandated certain work incentives in §402 (a)(8). There is no dispute here, however, about Texas’ compliance with these very detailed provisions for work incentives. Neither their inclusion in the Act nor the language used by Congress in other sections of the Act supports the inference that Congress mandated the States to change their income-computation procedures in other, completely unmentioned areas.
Nor are appellants aided by their reference to Social Security Act §402 (a) (10), 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (10), which provides that AFDC benefits must “be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals.” That section was enacted at a time when persons whom the State had determined to be eligible for the payment of benefits were placed on waiting lists, because of the shortage of state funds. The statute. was intended to prevent the States from denying benefits, even temporarily, to a person who has been found fully qualified for aid. See H. R. Rep. No. 1300, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 48, 148 (1949); 95 Cong. Rec. 13934 (remarks of Rep. Forand). Section 402 (a) (10) also prohibits a State from creating certain exceptions to standards specifically enunciated in the federal Act. See, e. g., Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282 (1971). It does not, however, enact by implication a generalized federal criterion to which States must adhere in their computation of standards of need, income, and benefits. Such an interpretation would be an intrusion into an area in which Congress has given the States broad discretion, and we cannot accept appellants’ invitation to change this longstanding statutory scheme simply for policy consideration reasons of which we are not the arbiter.
I — I h — I H-t
We turn, then, to appellants'" claim that the Texas system of percentage reductions violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellants believe that once the State has computed a standard of need for each recipient, it is arbitrary and discriminatory to provide only 75% of that standard to AFDC recipients, while paying 100% of recognized need to the aged, and 95% to the disabled and the blind. They argue that if the State adopts a percentage-reduction system, it must apply the same percentage to each of its welfare programs.
This claim was properly rejected by the court below. It is clear from the statutory framework that, although the four categories of public assistance found in the Social Security Act have certain common elements, the States were intended by Congress to keep their AFDC plans separate from plans under the other titles of the Act. A State is free to participate in one, several, or all of the categorical assistance programs, as it chooses. It is true that each of the programs is intended to assist the needy, but it does not follow that there is only one constitutionally permissible way for the State to approach this important goal.
This Court emphasized only recently, in Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 485 (1970), that in “the area of economics and social welfare, a State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect.” A legislature may address a problem “one step at a time,” or even “select one phase of one field and apply a remedy there, neglecting the others.” Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489 (1955). So long as its judgments are rational, and not invidious, the legislature’s efforts to tackle the problems of the poor and the needy are not subject to a constitutional strait jacket. The very complexity of the problems suggests that there will be more than one constitutionally permissible method of solving them.
The standard of judicial review is not altered because of appellants’ unproved allegations of racial discrimination. The three-judge court found that the “payment by Texas of a lesser percentage of unmet needs to the recipients of the AFDC than to the recipients of other welfare programs is not the result of racial or ethnic prejudice and is not violative of the federal Civil Rights Act or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.” The District Court obviously gave careful consideration to this issue, and we are cited by its opinion to a number of subsidiary facts to support its principal finding quoted above. There has never been a reduction in the amount of money appropriated by the legislature to the AFDC program, and between 1943 and the date of the opinion below there had been five increases in the amount of money appropriated by the legislature for the program, two of them having occurred since 1959. The overall percentage increase in appropriation for the programs between 1943 and the time of the District Court’s hearing in this case was 410% for AFDC, as opposed to 211% for OAA and 200% for AB. The court further concluded:
“The depositions of Welfare officials conclusively establish that the defendants did not know the racial make-up of the various welfare assistance categories prior to or at the time when the orders here under attack were issued.”
Appellants in their brief in effect abandon any effort to show that these findings of fact were clearly erroneous, and we hold they were not.
Appellants are thus left with their naked statistical argument: that there is a larger percentage of Negroes and Mexican-Americans in AFDC than in the other programs, and that the AFDC is funded at 75% whereas the other programs are funded at 95% and 100% of recognized need. As the statistics cited in the footnote demonstrate, the number of minority members in all categories is substantial. The basic outlines of eligibility for the various categorical grants are established by Congress, not by the States; given the heterogeneity of the Nation’s population, it would be only an infrequent coincidence that the racial composition of each grant class was identical to that of the others. The acceptance of appellants’ constitutional theory would render suspect each difference in treatment among the grant classes, however lacking in racial motivation and however otherwise rational the treatment might be. Few legislative efforts to deal with the difficult problems posed by current welfare programs could survive such scrutiny, and we do not find it required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Applying the traditional standard of review under that amendment, we cannot say that Texas’ decision to provide somewhat lower welfare benefits for AFDC recipients is invidious or irrational. Since budgetary constraints do not allow the payment of the full standard of need for all welfare recipients, the State may have concluded that the aged and infirm are the least able of the categorical grant recipients to bear the hardships of an inadequate standard of living. While different policy judgments are of course possible, it is not irrational for the State to believe that the young are more adaptable than the sick and elderly, especially because the latter have less hope of improving their situation in the years remaining to them. Whether or not one agrees with this state determination, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it.
Similarly, we cannot accept the argument in Mr. Justice Marshall’s dissent that the Social Security Act itself requires equal percentages for each categorical assistance program. The dissent concedes that a State might simply refuse to participate in the AFDC program, while continuing to receive federal money for the other categorical programs. See post, at 577. Nevertheless, it is argued that Congress intended to prohibit any middle ground — once the State does participate in a program it must do so on the same basis as it participates in every other program. Such an all-or-nothing policy judgment may well be defensible, and the dissenters may be correct that nothing in the statute expressly rejects it. But neither does anything in the statute approve or require it.
In conclusion, we re-emphasize what the Court said in Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S., at 487:
“We do not decide today that the [state law] is wise, that it best fulfills the relevant social and economic objectives that [the State] might ideally espouse, or that a more just and humane system could not be devised. Conflicting claims of morality and intelligence are raised by opponents and proponents of almost every measure, certainly including the one before us. But the intractable economic, social, and even philosophical problems presented by public welfare assistance programs are not the business of this Court.... [T]he Constitution does not empower this Court to second-guess state officials charged with the difficult responsibility of allocating limited public welfare funds among the myriad of potential recipients.”
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Stewart joins in Part III of the Court’s opinion.
Mr. Justice Douglas, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan concurs, dissenting.
I would read the Act more generously than does the Court'. It is stipulated that 87% of those receiving AFDC aid are blacks or Chicanos. I would therefore read the Act -against the background of rank discrimination against the blacks and the Chicanos and in light of the fact that Chicanos in Texas fare even more poorly than the blacks. See L. Grebler, J. Moore, & R. Guzman, The Mexican-American People, pts. 2 and 3 (1970) ; J. Burma, Mexican-Americans in the United States 143-199 (1970); Schwartz, State Discrimination Against Mexican Aliens, 38 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1091 (1970); U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Mexican American (1968); U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mexican Americans and the Administration of Justice in the Southwest (1970). In Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 413, we said that in administering such a program a State “may not obscure the actual standard of need.” Texas does precisely that by manipulating a mathematical formula.
In Rosado, we described how some States establish upper limits or máximums of aid, while others, like Texas, “curtail the payments of benefits by a system of 'ratable reductions’ whereby all recipients will receive a fixed percentage of the standard of need.” Id., at 409. Then in footnote 13 we described what that meant: “A 'ratable reduction’ represents a fixed percentage of the standard of need that will be paid to all recipients. In the event that there is some income that is first deducted, the ratable reduction is applied to the amount by which the individual or family income falls short of need.” Id., at 409 n. 13 (emphasis added).
If Texas first deducted outside income and then made its ratable reduction, the welfare recipient would receive a somewhat more generous payment, as the opinion of the Court illustrates in footnote 6 of its opinion. Not only does the Texas system avoid this generous approach, but it also impermissibly constricts the standard of need in conflict with Rosado, Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, and Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282. Under Texas’ method of computation, a family — otherwise eligible for AFDC benefits but with nonexempt income greater than the level of benefits and less than the standard of need — is denied both AFDC cash benefits and other noncash benefits such as medicaid. It seems inconceivable that Congress could have intended that noncash benefits be denied those with incomes less than the standard of need solely because that income was earned rather than from categorical assistance. Yet this is precisely the result sanctioned by the Court today because eligibility for these programs is tied to the receipt of cash benefits.
One of the stated purposes of the AFDC program is “to help such parents or relatives [of needy dependent children] to attain or retain capability for the maximum self-support and personal independence.” 42 U. S. C. § 601 (emphasis added). The Senate Finance Committee has stated, “A key element in any program for work and training for assistance recipients is an incentive for people to take employment.” S. Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 157 (1967) (emphasis added). The majority acknowledges that “[t]he history and purpose of the Social Security Act... indicate Congress' desire to help those on welfare become self-sustaining.” Ante, at 544. But it nonetheless ignores the explicit congressional policy in favor of work incentives and upholds a system which provides penalties and disincentives for those who seek employment.
The California Supreme Court in Villa v. Hall, 6 Cal. 3d 227, 490 P. 2d 1148, struck down the system this Court approves today, where California used a statutory maximum of payments rather than a ratable reduction. The California Supreme Court quite properly said that what the State was attempting was inconsistent with Rosado. Moreover, it had an additional reason:
“The conclusion that the Social Security Act requires outside income to be subtracted from standards of need rather than from statutory máximums or ratable reductions is also founded on a strong public policy of encouraging welfare recipients to become constantly more self-supporting. Yet deducting income from statutory máximums makes gainful employment significantly less attractive to the recipient. This follows because all nonexempt income will be offset directly against the amount of the grant and not against the standard of need to determine actual need; for every nonexempt dollar earned, the amount of aid will therefore be decreased one dollar. Since the grant is always less than the standard of need, in many instances the system adopted by the Welfare Reform Act will result in an individual’s need not being met even after adding both exempt and nonexempt income to the AFDC payment. Such recipients will be forced to exist below the bare minimum necessary for adequate care, even though they have commenced, by obtaining employment, to break free from the debilitating ‘welfare syndrome.’ The practice thus conflicts with the stated federal policy to provide incentives to obtain and maintain an employment status.” Id., at 235-236, 490 P. 2d, at 1153-1154.
Moreover, Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282, calls for a reversal in the present case. It is conceded that plaintiff Maria T. Davilla and 2,470 other families are denied aid in Texas by reason of its new formula, see 304 F. Supp. 1332, 1343, despite the fact that their income is below the standard of need and that of those receiving AFDC aid only 75% of their needs is met.
Under § 402 (a) (10) of the Social Security Act (which governs AFDC) “aid to families with dependent children shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals.” 42 U. S. C. §602 (a) (10). In Townsend children 18 through 20 years of age who attended high school or vocational training were eligible for AFDC benefits but such children in college were not eligible. We held that “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.” 404 U. S., at 286.
What Texas does here is to exclude large numbers of AFDC beneficiaries by application of a state eligibility test that is narrower than the one we approved in Rosado. "While a State has some discretion in its use of federal funds, it may not manipulate by its own formula groups of “needy” claimants. The decision to participate or not in the federal program is left to the States. Townsend v. Swank, supra, at 290-291. When, as here, federal and state funds are in short supply, the problem is not to lop off some categories of those in “need” but to design a way of managing the system of “need” so as not to raise equal protection questions. Id., at 291.
Section 402 (a) (10) of the Social Security Act provides that AFDC shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals. The House Report in commenting on it said:
“Shortage of funds in aid to dependent children has sometimes, as in old-age assistance, resulted in a decision not to take more applications or to keep eligible families on waiting lists until enough recipients could be removed from the assistance rolls to make a place for them.... [T]his difference in treatment accorded to eligible people results in undue hardship on needy persons and is inappropriate in a program financed from Federal funds.” H. R. Rep; No. 1300, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 48 (1949).
As the Court said in Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S., at 481, “So long as some aid is provided to all eligible families and all eligible children, the statute itself is not violated.” It is violated here because nearly 2,500 families that satisfy the requirements of “need” are denied any relief.
Mr. Justice Marshall, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, and with whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins as to Part I only, dissenting.
Appellants, recipients of Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) in Texas, brought this action to challenge two distinct aspects of the Texas AFDC program. First, appellants challenge the manner in which Texas arrives at the amount it will pay to persons who are needy. Second, they urge that Texas acts illegally in providing more money for persons receiving aid under other social welfare legislation than for persons receiving AFDC aid. The Court rejects both claims. I dissent.
Before proceeding to explain why I disagree with the Court, I would like to illustrate what the disputes in this case are all about. If a State is unable or unwilling to establish a level of AFDC payments to meet all the needs of all recipients, federal law permits the State to use a percentage-reduction factor as a method of reducing payments in a somewhat equitable manner. Texas has adopted a system in which the percentage-reduction factor is applied against the standard of need before outside income is deducted. Appellants contend that federal law requires the State to deduct outside income before the percentage-reduction factor is applied. While describing the differences between the two alternatives is a Herculean task, the figures themselves are not difficult to comprehend. Footnote 6 of the Court’s opinion, for example, demonstrates that the Texas system provides less aid to a family with outside income than the alternative system. It is also immediately obvious that under the Texas system, as soon as the family’s income reaches $150, it no longer receives anything from the State, whereas under the alternative, a family earning the same $150 would continue to receive some state funds. Hence, the Texas method of computation contracts the class of families eligible to receive state aid. Appellants contend that the characteristics of the Texas system are inconsistent with federal legislation and that only the alternative system comports with the intent of Congress. I agree.
Appellants also claim that the percentage-reduction factor employed by Texas is illegal, irrespective of the method of computing payments, because it is lower than the factor used in other social welfare programs that have participants with identical standards of need. I also agree with appellants on this point, but for slightly different reasons from those they have urged.
I
A. In considering the question whether Texas’ method of computing eligibility for AFDC payments comports with the federal statute, 42 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., it is important to keep in mind the words of Mr. Justice Cardozo: “When [federal] money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress, not the states.” Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619, 645 (1937). Mr. Justice Harlan reiterated this point in Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 422-423 (1970), when he stated that irrespective of the policies that a State might wish to pursue by utilizing AFDC money in one way or another, the ultimate question to be answered in each case is whether the action of the State comports with the requirements of federal law.
The Court concludes in the instant case that there is no general congressional policy violated by Texas’ choice between the alternative methods of applying a percentage-reduction factor to its determined standard of need, and also that no specific statutory provision prohibits Texas from choosing one alternative rather than the other. In concluding that the legislative history is inconclusive and that “what little legislative history there is on the point... tends to undercut appellants’ theory,” the Court has, in my opinion, taken only a superficial look into the history of the statute and has ignored the intent of Congress in various sections of the AFDC legislation as interpreted by this Court in prior cases.
B. I begin by considering the impact of § 402 (a) (23) of the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, 81 Stat. 898, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (23), on appellants’ argument. That section provides that
“(a) A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must
“(23) provide that by July 1, 1969, the amounts used by the State to determine the needs of individuals will have been adjusted to reflect fully changes in living costs since such amounts were established, and any máximums that the State imposes on the amount of aid paid to families will have been proportionately adjusted.”
Consideration of this section must, of. course, begin with Rosado v. Wyman, supra, where we examined the derivation of this section in great detail.
The relevant facts in Rosado are concisely stated in 397 U. S., at 416. New York State had changed its AFDC program so that it no longer determined need on an individualized basis, but instead substituted a system fixing maximum family allowances based on the number of individuals per family. The result was a drastic reduction in overall payments. New York State welfare recipients brought the suit in Rosado, claiming that by changing its AFDC system from an individualized-grant program to a maximum-grant program, New York had violated § 402 (a) (23).
Despite our recognition that “[t]he background of § 402 (a) (23) reveals little except that we have before us a child born of the silent union of legislative compromise,” 397 U. S., at 412, we determined to discover what Congress had in mind in adding the section to the pre-existing AFDC legislation. We concluded that two general purposes could be ascribed to the section:
“First, to require States to face up realistically to the magnitude of the public assistance requirement and lay bare the extent to which their programs fall short of fulfilling actual need; second, to prod the States to apportion their payments on a more equitable basis.” 397 U. S., at 412-413.
These conclusions led us to reject the holding of the District Court, 304 F. Supp. 1354, 1377, that Congress intended to prevent any reduction whatever in AFDC payments, and to reject the argument of the welfare recipients that if payments could be reduced § 402 (a) (23) would be meaningless. We decided that “a State may, after recomputing its standard of need, pare down payments to accommodate budgetary realities by reducing the percent of benefits paid or switching to a percent reduction system, but it may not obscure the actual standard of need.” 397 U. S., at 413 (emphasis in original). Far from emasculating the statute, our reading recognized that the statute had at least three specific salutary effects, and that these were the effects that Congress intended in enacting the legislation:
“It has the effect of requiring the States to recognize and accept the responsibility for those additional individuals whose income falls short of the standard of need as computed in light of economic realities and to place them among those eligible for the care and training provisions. Secondly, while it leaves the States free to effect downward adjustments in the level of benefits paid, it accomplishes within that framework the goal, however modest, of forcing a State to accept the political consequence of such a cutback and bringing to light the true extent to which actual assistance falls short of the minimum acceptable. Lastly, by imposing on those States that desire to maintain'máximums’ the requirement of an appropriate adjustment, Congress has introduced an incentive to abandon a flat'maximum’ system, thereby encouraging those States desirous of containing their welfare budget to shift to a percentage system that will more equitably apportion those funds in fact allocated for welfare and also more accurately reflect the real measure of public assistance being given.” Id., at 413-414.
Thus, it is clear that we based our decision in Rosado, a decision that interpreted § 402 (a) (23) to permit a decrease in actual AFDC payments, largely on the conclusion that Congress wanted, not to bar decreases, but to accomplish other objectives. The fact is that the Court today undermines each of those objectives and destroys the premise on which Rosado was decided.
One specific congressional goal we saw in § 402 (a) (23) was that “ [Recalculation of need may serve to render eligible for benefits families which may appear under unadjusted standards marginally to have attained self-sufficiency, but which in fact are unable to subsist at the present cost of living.” Memorandum for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Rosado v. Wyman, No. 540, O. T. 1969, p. 8. In other words, we read the section as expressing 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 Sotomayor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case interprets two provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The first, 28 U. S. C. § 2253(c), provides that a habeas petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal a federal district court’s final order in a habeas proceeding. § 2253(c)(1). The COA may issue only if the petitioner has made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” § 2253(c)(2), and “shall indicate which specific issue” satisfies that showing, § 2253(c)(3). We hold that § 2253(c)(3) is not a jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, a judge’s failure to “indicate” the requisite constitutional issue in a COA does not deprive a court of appeals of subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the habeas petitioner’s appeal.
The second provision, 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), establishes a 1-year limitations period for state prisoners to file federal habeas petitions, running from “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” We hold that, for a state prisoner who does not seek review in a State’s highest court, the judgment becomes “final” on the date that the time for seeking such review expires.
Petitioner Rafael Gonzalez was convicted of murder m Texas state court. The intermediate state appellate court, the Texas Court of Appeals, affirmed Gonzalez’s conviction on July 12,2006. Gonzalez then allowed his time for seeking discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (Texas CCA) — the State’s highest court for criminal appeals — to expire on August 11, 2006. Tex. Rule App. Proc. 68.2(a) (2011). The Texas Court of Appeals issued its mandate on September 26, 2006.
After Gonzalez, proceeding pro se, petitioned unsuccessfully for state habeas relief, he filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 on January 24, 2008, in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. His petition alleged, inter alia, that the nearly 10-year delay between his indictment and trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The District Court, without discussing Gonzalez’s constitutional claims, dismissed Gonzalez’s petition as time barred by the 1-year statute of limitations in § 2244(d)(1)(A). Although Gonzalez argued that his judgment had not become final until the Texas Court of Appeals issued its mandate, the District Court held that Gonzalez’s judgment had become final when his time for seeking discretionary review in the Texas CCA expired on August 11, 2006. Counting from that date, and tolling the limitations period for the time during which Gonzalez’s state habeas petition was pending, Gonzalez’s limitations period elapsed on December 17, 2007 — over a month before he filed his federal habeas petition. The District Court denied a COA.
Gonzalez applied to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for a COA on two grounds: (1) his habeas petition was timely, and (2) his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right was violated. A Court of Appeals Judge granted a COA on the question “whether the habeas application was timely filed because Gonzalez’s conviction became final, and thus the limitation^] period commenced, on the date the intermediate state appellate court issued its mandate.” App. 347. The COA did not mention the Sixth Amendment question.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 623 F. 3d 222 (2010). Acknowledging that a sister Circuit had run the limitations period from the date of a state court’s issuance of a mandate, the Court of Appeals deemed the mandate’s issuance “irrelevant” to determining finality under § 2244(d)(1)(A). Id., at 224, 226 (disagreeing with Riddle v. Kerrma, 523 F. 3d 850 (CA8 2008) (en banc)). The Court of Appeals held that because a judgment becomes final at “the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review,” § 2244(d)(1)(A), the limitations period begins to run for petitioners who fail to appeal to a State’s highest court when the time for seeking further direct review in the state court expires. The Court of Appeals therefore concluded that Gonzalez’s conviction became final on August 11, 2006, and his habeas petition was time barred.
The Court of Appeals did not address Gonzalez’s Sixth Amendment claim or discuss whether the COA had been improperly issued. Nor did the State allege any defect in the COA or move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Gonzalez petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. In its brief in opposition, the State argued for the first time that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Gonzalez’s appeal because the COA identified only a procedural issue, without also “indicating]” a constitutional issue as required by § 2253(c)(3). We granted certiorari to decide two questions, both of which implicate splits in authority: (1) whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to adjudicate Gonzalez’s appeal, notwithstanding the § 2253(c)(3) defect; and (2) whether Gonzalez’s habeas petition was time barred under § 2244(d)(1) due to the date on which his judgment became final. 564 U. S. 1003 (2011).
II
We first consider whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to adjudicate Gonzalez’s appeal.
A
Section 2253, as amended by AEDPA, governs appeals in habeas corpus proceedings. The first subsection, § 2253(a), is a general grant of jurisdiction, providing that district courts’ final orders in habeas proceedings “shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals.” 28 U. S. C. § 2253(a). The second, § 2253(b), limits jurisdiction over a particular type of final order. See § 2253(b) (“There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant [of] remov[al]... ”). This case concerns the third, § 2253(c), which provides:
“(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals...
“(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
“(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).”
When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the petitioner seeking a COA must show both “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S. 473, 484 (2000).
In this case, the Court of Appeals Judge granted a COA that identified a debatable procedural ruling, but did not “indicate” the issue on which Gonzalez had made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required by § 2253(c)(3). The question before us is whether that defect deprived the Court of Appeals of the power to adjudicate Gonzalez’s appeal. We hold that it did not.
This Court has endeavored in recent years to “bring some discipline” to the use of the term “jurisdictional.” Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U. S. 428, 435 (2011). Recognizing our “less than meticulous” use of the term in the past, we have pressed a stricter distinction between truly jurisdictional rules, which govern “a court’s adjudicatory authority,” and nonjurisdictional “claim-processing rules,” which do not. Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443, 454-455 (2004). When a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U. S. 625, 630 (2002). Subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or forfeited. The objections may be resurrected at any point in the litigation, and a valid objection may lead a court midway through briefing to dismiss a complaint in its entirety. “[M]any months of work on the part of the attorneys and the court may be wasted.” Henderson, 562 U. S., at 435. Courts, we have said, should not lightly attach those “drastic” consequences to limits Congress has enacted. Ibid.
We accordingly have applied the following principle: A rule is jurisdictional “[i]f the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 515 (2006). But if “Congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional.” Id., at 516. That dear-statement principle makes particular sense in this statute, as we consider — against the backdrop of § 2253(a)’s clear jurisdictional grant to the courts of appeals and § 2253(b)’s clear limit on that grant — the extent to which Congress intended the COA process outlined in § 2253(c) to further limit the courts of appeals’ jurisdiction over habeas appeals.
Here, the only “clear” jurisdictional language in § 2253(c) appears in § 2253(c)(1). As we explained in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322 (2003), §2253(c)(l)’s plain terms— “Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals” — establish that “until a COA has been issued federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to rule on the merits of appeals from habeas petitioners.” Id., at 336. The parties thus agree that § 2253(c)(1) is jurisdictional.
The parties also agree that § 2253(c)(2) is nonjurisdic-tional. That is for good reason. Section 2253(c)(2) speaks only to when a COA may issue — upon “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” It does not contain §2253(c)(l)’s jurisdictional terms. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (“[WJhere Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally... ”). And it would be passing strange if, after a COA has issued, each court of appeals adjudicating an appeal were dutybound to revisit the threshold showing and gauge its “substantial[ity]” to verify its jurisdiction. That inquiry would be largely duplicative of the merits question before the court.
It follows that § 2253(c)(3) is nonjurisdictional as well. Like § 2253(c)(2), it too reflects a threshold condition for the issuance of a COA — the COA’s indication of “which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).” It too “does not speak in jurisdictional terms or refer in any way to the jurisdiction of the [appeals] courts.” Ar-baugh, 546 U. S., at 515 (internal quotation marks omitted). The unambiguous jurisdictional terms of §§ 2253(a), (b), and (c)(1) show that Congress would have spoken in clearer terms if it intended § 2253(c)(3) to have similar jurisdictional force. Instead, the contrast underscores that the failure to obtain a COA is jurisdictional, while a COA’s failure to indicate an issue is not. A defective COA is not equivalent to the lack of any COA.
It is telling, moreover, that Congress placed the power to issue CO As in the hands of a “circuit justice or judge.” It would seem somewhat counterintuitive to render a panel of court of appeals judges powerless to act on appeals based on COAs that Congress specifically empowered one court of appeals judge to grant. Indeed, whereas § 2253(c)(2)’s substantial-showing requirement at least describes a burden that “the applicant” seeking a COA bears, § 2253(c)(3)’s indication requirement binds only the judge issuing the COA. Notably, Gonzalez advanced both the timeliness and Sixth Amendment issues in his application for a COA. A petitioner, having successfully obtained a COA, has no control over how the judge drafts the COA and, as in Gonzalez’s case, may have done everything required of him by law. That fact would only compound the “unfai[r] prejudice” resulting from the sua sponte dismissals and remands that jurisdictional treatment would entail. Henderson, 562 U. S., at 434.
Treating § 2253(c)(3) as jurisdictional also would thwart Congress’ intent in AEDPA “to eliminate delays in the federal habeas review process.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U. S. 631,648 (2010). The COA process screens out issues unworthy of judicial time and attention and ensures that frivolous claims are not assigned to merits panels. Once a judge has made the determination that a COA is warranted and resources are deployed in briefing and argument, however, the COA has fulfilled that gatekeeping function. Even if additional screening of already-issued COAs for § 2253(c)(3) defects could further winnow the cases before the courts of appeals, that would not outweigh the costs of further delay from the extra layer of review. This case, in which the alleged defect would be dispositive, exemplifies those inefficiencies; the State requests that we vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss the appeal based on a § 2253(c)(3) defect that it raised for the first time in response to a petition for certiorari. And delay would be particularly fruitless in the numerous cases where, as here, the district court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds and the court of appeals affirms, without having to address the omitted constitutional issue at all.
B
The State, aided by the United States as amicus curiae, makes several arguments in support of jurisdictional treatment of § 2253(c)(3). None is persuasive.
First, the State notes that although § 2253(c)(3) does not speak in jurisdictional terms, it refers back to § 2253(c)(1), which does. The State argues that it is as if § 2253(c)(1) provided: “Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability that shall indicate the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2), an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals.” The problem is that the statute provides no such thing. Instead, Congress set off the requirements in distinct paragraphs and, rather than mirroring their terms, excluded the jurisdictional terms in one from the other. Notably, the State concedes that § 2253(c)(2) is nonjurisdictional, even though it too cross-references § 2253(c)(1) and is cross-referenced by § 2253(c)(3).
Second, the State seizes on the word “shall” in § 2253(c)(3), arguing that an omitted indication renders the COA no COA at all. But calling a rule nonjurisdictional does not mean that it is not mandatory or that a timely objection can be ignored. If a party timely raises the COA’s failure to indicate a constitutional issue, the court of appeals panel must address the defect by considering an amendment to the COA or remanding to the district judge for specification of the issues. This Court, moreover, has long “rejected the notion that ‘all mandatory prescriptions, however emphatic, are... properly typed jurisdictional.’” Henderson, 562 U. S., at 439; see also Dolan v. United States, 560 U. S. 605, 620 (2010) (statute’s reference to “ ‘shall’ ” alone does not render statutory deadline jurisdictional). Nothing in § 2253(c)(3)’s prescription establishes that an omitted indication should remain an open issue throughout the case.
Third, the United States argues that the placement of § 2253(c)(3) in a section containing jurisdictional provisions signals that it too is jurisdictional. In characterizing certain requirements as nonjurisdictional, we have on occasion observed their “‘separation]’” from jurisdictional provisions. E. g., Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154, 162 (2010); Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 515. The converse, however, is not necessarily true: Mere proximity will not turn a rule that speaks in nonjurisdictional terms into a jurisdictional hurdle. In fact, § 2253(c)(3)’s proximity to §§ 2253(a), (b), and (c)(1) highlights the absence of clear jurisdictional terms in § 2253(c)(3).
Finally, the State analogizes a COA to a notice of appeal, pointing out that both a notice and its contents are jurisdictional prerequisites. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1) provides that a notice of appeal must: “(A) specify the party or parties taking the appeal”; “(B) designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed”; and “(C) name the court to which'the appeal is taken.” We have held that “Rule 3’s dictates are jurisdictional in nature.” Smith v. Barry, 502 U. S. 244, 248 (1992).
We reject this analogy. We construed the content requirements for notices of appeal as jurisdictional because we were “convinced that the harshness of our construction [wa]s ‘imposed by the legislature.’ ” Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U. S. 312, 318 (1988). Rule 4, we noted, establishes mandatory time limits for filing a notice of appeal. Excusing a failure to name a party in a notice of appeal, in violation of Rule 3, would be “equivalent to permitting courts to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal,” in violation of Rule 4. Id., at 315. And “time limits for filing a notice of appeal have been treated as jurisdictional in American law for well over a century.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205, 209, n. 2 (2007). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Note “makes no distinction among the various requirements of Rule 3 and Rule 4,” treating them “as a single jurisdictional threshold.” Torres, 487 U. S., at 315; see also id., at 316 (“[T]he Advisory Committee viewed the requirements of Rule 3 as jurisdictional in nature”). Here, we find no similar basis for treating the paragraphs of § 2253(c) as a single jurisdictional threshold.
Moreover, in explaining why the naming requirement was jurisdictional in Torres, we reasoned that an unnamed party leaves the notice’s “intended recipients]” — the appellee and court — “unable to determine with certitude whether [that party] should be bound by an adverse judgment or held liable for costs or sanctions.” Id., at 318. The party could sit on the fence, await the outcome, and opt to participate only if it was favorable. That possibility of gamesmanship is not present here. Unlike the party who fails to submit a compliant notice of appeal, the habeas petitioner who obtains a COA cannot control how that COA is drafted. And whereas a party’s failure to be named in a notice of appeal gives absolutely no “notice of [his or her] appeal,” a judge’s issuance of a COA reflects his or her judgment that the appeal should proceed and supplies the State with notice that the habeas litigation will continue.
Because we conclude that § 2253(c)(3) is a nonjurisdictional rule, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to adjudicate Gonzalez’s appeal.
Ill
We next consider whether Gonzalez’s habeas petition was time barred. AEDPA establishes a 1-year limitations period for state prisoners to file for federal habeas relief, which “run[s] from the latest of” four specified dates. § 2244(d)(1). This case concerns the first of those dates: “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” § 2244(d)(1)(A). The question before us is when the judgment becomes “final” if a petitioner does not appeal to a State’s highest court.
A
In construing the language of § 2244(d)(1)(A), we do not write on a blank slate. In Clay v. United States, 537 U. S. 522 (2003), we addressed AEDPA’s statute of limitations for federal prisoners seeking postconviction relief. See § 2255(f)(1) (2006 ed., Supp. IV) (beginning 1-year period of limitations from “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final”). We held that the federal judgment becomes final “when this Court affirms a conviction on the merits on direct review or denies a petition for a writ of certiorari,” or, if a petitioner does not seek certiorari, “when the time for filing a certiorari petition expires.” Id., at 527. In so holding, we rejected the argument that, if a petitioner declines to seek certiorari, the limitations period “starts to run on the date the court of appeals issues its mandate.” Id., at 529.
In Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U. S. 113 (2009), we described Clay's, interpretation as comporting “with the most natural reading of the statutory text” and saw “no reason to depart” from it in “construing the similar language of § 2244(d)(1)(A).” 555 U. S., at 119. The state court had permitted Jimenez to file an out-of-time direct appeal. We held that this “reset” the limitations period; Jimenez’s judgment would now become final at “the conclusion of the out-of-time direct appeal, or the expiration of the time for seeking review of that [out-of-time] appeal.” Id., at 120-121. Because Jimenez did not seek certiorari, we made no mention of when the out-of-time appeal “conclu[ded].” Rather, we held that his judgment became final when his “time for seeking certiorari review in this Court expired.” Id., at 120. Nor did we mention the date on which the state court issued its mandate. Both Clay and Jimenez thus suggested that the direct review process either “concludes” or “expires,” depending on whether the petitioner pursues or forgoes direct appeal to this Court.
We now make clear what we suggested in those cases: The text of § 2244(d)(1)(A), which marks finality as of “the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review,” consists of two prongs. Each prong— the “conclusion of direct review” and the “expiration of the time for seeking such review” — relates to a distinct category of petitioners. For petitioners who pursue direct review all the way to this Court, the judgment becomes final at the “conclusion of direct review” — when this Court affirms a conviction on the merits or denies a petition for certiorari. For all other petitioners, the judgment becomes final at the “expiration of the time for seeking such review” — when the time for pursuing direct review in this Court, or in state court, expires. We thus agree with the Court of Appeals that because Gonzalez did not appeal to the State's highest court, his judgment became final when his time for seeking review with the State’s highest court expired.
B
Gonzalez offers an alternative reading of § 2244(d)(1)(A): Courts should determine both the “conclusion of direct review” and the “expiration of the time for seeking such review” for every petitioner who does not seek certiorari, then start the 1-year clock from the “latest of” the two dates. Gonzalez rejects our uniform definition of the “conclusion of direct review” as the date on which this Court affirms a con-vietion on the merits or denies a petition for certiorari. In his view, whenever a petitioner does not seek certiorari, the “conclusion of direct review” is the date on which state law marks finality — in Texas, the date on which the mandate issues. Ex parte Johnson, 12 S. W. 3d 472, 473 (Crim. App. 2000) (per curiam). Applying this approach, Gonzalez contends that his habeas petition was timely because his direct review “concluded” when the mandate issued (on September 26, 2006), later than the date on which his time for seeking Texas CCA review “expired” (August 11,2006). We find his construction of the statute unpersuasive.
First, Gonzalez lacks a textual anchor for his later-in-time approach. The words “latest of” do not appear anywhere in § 2244(d)(1)(A). Rather, they appear in § 2244(d)(1) and refer, to the “latest of” the dates in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) — the latter three of which are inapplicable here. Nothing in § 2244(d)(1)(A) contemplates any conflict between the “conclusion of direct review” and the “expiration of the time for seeking such review,” much less instructs that the later of the two shall prevail.
Nor is Gonzalez’s later-in-time reading necessary to give both prongs of § 2244(d)(1)(A) full effect. Our reading does so by applying one “or” the other, depending on/whether the direct review process concludes or expires. Treating the judgment as final on one date “or” the other is consistent with the disjunctive language of the provision.
Second, Gonzalez misreads our precedents. Gonzalez asserts that in Jimenez, we made a later-in-time choice between the two prongs. That is mistaken. Rather, we chose between two “expiration” dates corresponding to different appeals: Jimenez initially failed to appeal to the Texas Court of Appeals and that appeal became final when his “time for seeking discretionary review... expired.” 565 U. S., at 117, 119. When Jimenez was later allowed to file an out-of-time appeal, he pursued appeals with both the Texas Court of Appeals and Texas CCA; the out-of-time appeal thus became final when his “[t]ime for seeking certiorari review... with this Court expired.” Id., at 116, 120. We adopted the out-of-time appeal’s date of finality over the initial appeal’s date of finality. Id., at 119-121. Critically, by deeming the initial appeal final at the expiration of time for seeking review in state court, and the out-of-time appeal final at the expiration of time for seeking certiorari in this Court, we reinforced Clay’s suggestion that the “expiration” prong governs all petitioners who do not pursue direct review all the way to this Court.
Third, Gonzalez argues that AEDPA’s federalism concerns and respect for state-law procedures mean that we should not read § 2244(d)(1)(A) to disregard state law. We agree. That is why a state court’s reopening of direct review will reset the limitations period. 555 U. S., at 121. That is also why, just as we determine the “expiration of the time for seeking [direct] review” from this Court’s filing deadlines when petitioners forgo certiorari, we look to state-court filing deadlines when petitioners forgo state-court appeals. Referring to state-law procedures in that context makes sense because such deadlines are inherently court specific. There is no risk of relying on “state-law rules that may differ from the general federal rule.” Clay, 537 U. S., at 531.
By contrast, Gonzalez urges us to scour each State’s laws and cases to determine how it defines finality for every petitioner who forgoes a state-court appeal. That approach would usher in state-by-state definitions of the conclusion of direct review. It would be at odds with the uniform definition we adopted in Clay and accepted in the § 2244(d)(1)(A) context in Jimenez. And it would pose serious administra-bility concerns. Even if roughly “half of the States define the conclusion of direct review as the issuance of the mandate or similar process,” Brief for Petitioner 40, that still leaves half with either different rules or no settled rules at all.
Fourth, Gonzalez speculates that our reading will rob some habeas petitioners of the full 1-year limitations period. Gonzalez asserts that our reading starts the clock running from the date that his time for seeking Texas CCA review expired, even though, under Texas law, he could not file for state habeas relief until six weeks later, on the date the Texas Court of Appeals issued its mandate. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 11.07, § 3(a) (Vernon Supp. 2011). His inability to initiate state habeas proceedings during those six weeks, he argues, reduced his 1-year federal habeas filing period by six weeks. We expect, however, that it will be a rare situation where a petitioner confronting similar state laws faces a delay in the mandate’s issuance so excessive that it prevents him or her from filing a federal habeas petition within a year. A petitioner who has exhausted his or her claims in state court need not await state habeas proceedings to seek federal habeas relief on those claims. To the extent a petitioner has had his or her federal filing period severely truncated by a delay in the mandate’s issuance and has unex-hausted claims that must be raised on state habeas review, such a petitioner could file a request for a stay and abeyance from the federal district court. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U. S. 269, 277 (2005).
Finally, Gonzalez argues, as an alternative to his later-in-time construction, that his petition should be considered timely because it was filed within a year of when his time for seeking this Court’s review — as opposed to the Texas CCA’s review — expired. We can review, however, only judgments of a “state court of last resort” or of a lower state court if the “state court of last resort” has denied discretionary review. This Court’s Rule 13.1; see also 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a) (2006 ed.). Because Gonzalez did not appeal to the Texas CCA, this Court would have lacked jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari from the Texas Court of Appeals’ decision affirming Gonzalez’s conviction. We therefore decline to incorporate the 90-day period for seeking certiorari in determining when Gonzalez’s judgment became final.
* * *
In sum, we hold that § 2253(c)(3) is a mandatory but nonju-risdictional rule. Here, the COA’s failure to “indicate” a constitutional issue did not deprive the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to adjudicate Gonzalez’s appeal. We further hold that, with respect to a state prisoner who does not seek review in a State’s highest court, the judgment becomes “final” under § 2244(d)(1)(A) when the time for seeking such review expires — here, August 11, 2006. We thus agree with the Court of Appeals that Gonzalez’s federal habeas petition was time barred.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is
Affirmed.
The Circuits have divided over whether a defect in a COA is a jurisdictional bar. Compare, e. g., Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F. 3d 722, 726 (CA9 2004) (no); Porterfield v. Bell, 258 F. 3d 484, 485 (CA6 2001) (no); Young v. United States, 124 F. 3d 794, 798-799 (CA7 1997) (no), with United States v. Cepero, 224 F. 3d 256, 259-262 (CA3 2000) (en banc) (yes).
The Circuits have divided over when a judgment becomes final if a petitioner forgoes review in a State’s highest court. Compare, e. g., 623 F. 3d 222, 226 (CA5 2010) (case below) (date when time for seeking such review expires); Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F. 3d 1069, 1073-1074 (CA9 2007) (same), with Riddle v. Kemna, 523 F. 3d 850, 855-856 (CA8 2008) (en banc) (date when state court issues its mandate).
We have also held 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.” Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154,168 (2010). Here, however, even though the requirement of a COA (or its predecessor, the certificate of probable cause (CPC)) dates back to 1908, Congress did not enact the indication requirement until 1996. There is thus no “long line of this Court’s decisions left undisturbed by Congress” on which to rely. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 558 U. S. 67, 82 (2009).
The issuance of a CPC, like the issuance of a COA, was jurisdictional. Contrary to the dissent’s assertions, post, at 161-163 (opinion of Scalia, J.), that fact does not suggest that the indication requirement is jurisdictional as well. If anything, the inference runs the other way. For nearly a century, a judge’s granting or withholding of a CPC, absent any indication of issues, was the fully effective “expression of opinion,” post, at 161, required for an appeal to proceed. AEDPA’s new requirement that judges indicate the specific issues to be raised on appeal has no predecessor provision — indeed, it is the primary difference between a CPC and COA.
The United States as amicus curiae contends that § 2253(e)(2) is jurisdictional, but the State concedes that it is not. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31.
The courts of appeals uniformly interpret “circuit justice or judge” to encompass district judges. See United States v. Mitchell, 216 F. 3d 1126, 1129 (CADC 2000) (collecting cases); Fed. Rule App. Proc. 22
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.